Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy
The Reuters headline said: "Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House." Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It's a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?
It is true that John Kennedy made a similar vow in his famous 1960 speech on religion, and Romney was clearly modeling his speech on Kennedy's. But the two situations are not the same. When John Kennedy vowed that the Vatican would not control his administration, he was trying to assuage the historical fear of the Roman Catholic Church that had been instilled into generations of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Kennedy shrewdly didn't say that the Vatican wouldn't try to interfere—something that his Protestant target audience would never have believed in a millions years anyway; instead, Kennedy said in effect, "I won't let the Vatican interfere." And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.
The Mormon church is not Romney's problem; it is Romney's own personal religiosity. On the one hand, Romney is too religious for those who don't like religion in public life—a fact that alienates him from those who could care less about a candidate's religion, so long as the candidate doesn't much care about it himself. On the other hand, Romney offends precisely those Christian evangelicals who agree with him most on the importance of religion in our civic life, many of whom would be his natural supporters if only he was a "real" Christian like them, and not a Mormon instead.
To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.
Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don't support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.
The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.
Romney's best approach might have been to say nothing at all. Certainly that would have been preferable to trying to turn his candidacy into an issue of religious tolerance. Better still, he might have said frankly: "My religion is different and, yes, even a trifle odd. But it has not kept Mormons from dying for their country, or paying their taxes, or educating their kids, or making decent communities in which to live."
2. Does God have a father?
3. Was the Garden of Eden in Missouri?
nope - they don't make that claim.
I agree with all you wrote except for “they aren’t going to Giuliani.” I think I read Guiliani is getting quite a lot of evangelical Christian support, actually. And he might get mine.
A recent convert to all things conservative.
Conservatives are skeptics.
Somehow he wants us to translate being comfortable with his religion into being comfortable with his past.
Not bloody likely.
I don’t think using theological critique as a thin disguise for one’s politics is honest.
You are wrong about Romney’s position on the Boy Scouts: ““Governor Romney has been a supporter of the Boy Scouts and has said he supports their right to decide scouting policies.”
Romney in 1994 said that children should be allowed to participate IN the boy scouts regardless of their sexual orientation. That’s a different matter than allowing a homosexual to be a leader.
The scouts generally only take action against outspoken advocates of the gay agenda when it comes to the boys. Heck, a 12-year-old is hardly going to be “gay” or “straight” from the point of view that it matters as a boy scout. Maybe boy scouts is just what a confused child needs to be a man.
Why should he have left it out? He is entitled to his opinion on Mormonism, just like anyone else.
I have disregarded criticism of Romney’s faith up until now. I don’t care for him for other reasons. However, I do have to say that delving into some of the beliefs of Joseph Smith has caused me to change my mind somewhat about whether or not Romney’s beliefs could interfere with his presidency.
Smith was an admirer of Muhammed. I firmly believe that Islam is antithetical to our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. There are those Muslims in this country who work to undermine us. If Mitt Romney believes what Joseph Smith believed, then I fear that he does not have the smarts to figure out who the Islamist propagandists in America are. He won’t know how to differentiate between someone like Jasser and members of CAIR, or other Hamas-related organizations. He probably thinks Islam is really a religion of peace and that it has been hijacked by extremists. There are peaceful Muslims, but Islam itself is only peaceful when everyone else has been forced to submit.
So how would Mitt do on national security issues considering Smith’s view of Muhammed?
Then what are you doing on these threads, what value is your opinion on anything?
As far as you are concerned, the world was a better place when it was ruled by the slave whipping dictator of the day.
The fact of the mater is, you live in the the most free country in the world because of it's Christian foundation, not in spite of it. And now that that Christian faith is eroding, being destroyed by people like you, you'll get to suffer the downfall along with the rest of us. In the very end, You die and become dust like the plant you think you are.
Thanks for the answer, as condescending as it is.
It looked like you were pimping your blog, but it’s not yours.
Got it.
Akin to the origin of my tagline from a poster who quibbles with Romney's Mormon faith but wouldn't if it were held by Duncan Hunter.
“probably won’t go to Fred as he keeps telling them their faith is of little interest to him.”
Where did you get that from? Fred got 2 more endorsements from Right to Life groups this week.
Exactly my concerns. This country is going to be facing very trying times in the very near future, we can't have anyone dropping the ball on this issue, or we are doomed.
I don’t know, but it’s not like Scientology. Anybody who wants to know anything about Mormonism can simply log onto their web site, or read the Book of Mormon.
They have bizarre beliefs but they don’t hide them.
Someone has to do it, otherwise all Christians would be liberals. If Fr. Jonathan supports Israel, is he being religious or political? Is he allowed to speak about that?
Here's the link to only that question.Romney on Boy Scouts
I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom… killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
That large headed redneck guy that is on TV, Copeland ministries. It's in one of those pamphlets they send out, sort of an addum to the bible.
Good questions. The fact that Mitt said he would refuse to answer #3, shows it & other similar questions that they are relevant.
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.