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."
And this: Let God judge the priests, ministers and pastors, just worry about yourself .
I do and will continue to do so. I suggest that's good advice for those who preach on websites too.
The Right to Life groups are endorsing Fred.
The social conservatives left him two months ago, when they found out he doesn’t go to church and doesn’t care to talk about his faith.
Now they are with Huckabee.
Via the Daily Fread, the Washington Post:
“The actor and former senator, who was baptized in the Church of Christ, said he gained his values from “sitting around the kitchen table” and said he did not plan to speak about his religious beliefs on the stump. “I know that I’m right with God and the people I love,” he said, according to Bloomberg News Service. It’s “just the way I am not to talk about some of these things.””
He is giving his opinion on politics in that quote. If the candidate of his choice were Mormon, he wouldn't question it. Who is Fr. Morris's candidate of choice for President next year? That is the pertinent question.
As were many many others before them... some coming to this country to escape persecution, I might add.
And your point being?
You are asking questions designed to paint Mormonism as weird.
I can do the same thing:
1. Does Jesus Christ currently have a penis?
2. Why do you practice theological cannibalism when taking the Eucharist?
3. Do Jews go to heaven even though they explicitly REJECT Jesus as the Son of God and God incarnate?
Are you willing to answer these questions PROPERLY, based upon ACCURATE Christian teachings?
You see, anyone can formulate pass/fail conditions - the REAL issue is HONESTY and INTEGRITY.
That’s what I see absent in those who claim Mormons aren’t Christians.
Who wrote that stuff?
Just think how I felt when I heard him explain that Mormons shed their skin every 6 years, eat their young, and have X-ray vision. Why you could have bowled me over with Hitlery for Pres button!
No, the question involved the boy scouts. He SAT ON the board of directors. The “they” did not refer to the “board of directors” but to “the boy scouts”.
Romney said the boy scouts had the right to decide their own rules, but said he felt anybody should be allowed to be a member.
That was in 1994, I don’t know if he has expressed a position on allowing gay boys into scouting more recently.
What candidate does Fr. Morris support?
What candidate do you support?
Then I will answer your question.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't care why some Christians reject others and I'm even less interested in a unified Christian position which I doubt ever did or ever will exist in reality - despite any claims to the contrary.
I missed the interview where he was asked that question and refused to answer it.
Could you post a link?
And Parley Pratt had about a dozen wives. According to current LDS teaching on polygamy, it's still being practiced by a (deceased) Pratt on whatever planet/celestial kingdom he & other LDS polygamist leaders are on...
Polygamy wasn't totally dismissed or banded; just dimensionally moved to another colony of the universe.
The next time you see an LDS bumpersticker, "Families are forever," realize that what they think that means includes marriage is forever, including polygamous marriage. (compare that to Jesus' words in Matthew 19)
I heard him say that he likes Fred Thompson at one time. I don’t know if he has changed his opinion or if he remains with Fred.
I guess he never went to the vatican. Busiest country in the world.
Here's a question for you or anyone else who REALLY believes there is unity of Christian thought - must a Christian belong to an organization to be validated as a Christian.
It sure took Mitt a long time to see the light about abortion. His change of heart on this one crucial issue, at such a convenient time in his political life, shouts out “Hypocrite!” to me.
means he believes there is another kind.
Still confused how question #3...or the other 2 for that matter have anything at all to do with being President of the USA.
Oh wait...that's right they don't so there is no reason to answer them or for that matter even fielding the question.
“So how would Mitt do on national security issues considering Smith’s view of Muhammed?”
He will send out fresh-faced handsome young men, two-by-two, to knock on the doors of every cave in the Middle East.
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.