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."
You haven’t noticed some of the flinching regarding the questions about Creation?
redrock
I don’t remember you ever “attacking” in a manner that was disrespectful or rude. You ask hard questions and express tough opinions. That’s a good thing.
I could have missed some things you wrote.
No, the problem is you create a definition for what a “Christian” is that is designed to exclude Mormons from the term DESPITE such a criteria is ABSENT in the Bible.
Why not just stick to what the Bible says?
According to the Bible, a “Christian” is someone who believes Jesus Christ is:
The Savior.
The Redeemer.
The Messiah.
The Lamb of God.
The Son of God.
God.
The I AM.
The Son of Man.
Born of a virgin.
The First/Last.
The Creator.
The Paraclete/ Advocate/ Comforter.
The Mediator/ Intercessor/ Reconciler.
He died for our sins.
He died on the cross.
He rose from the dead.
The Judge.
The Foundation.
The Rock.
The only Begotten Son of God.
Worshiped.
The name used to pray to the Father.
Obeyed.
We take upon ourselves his name.
The only source of Salvation and the greatest name possible
THAT’S IT!
Each of these beliefs are explicitly believed and taught by Mormonism and can be found in the Latter-day Scriptures (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id108.htm)
If we just limit ourselves to the Bible, there can be NO doubt Mormons are Christians.
Anyone who disagrees is dishonest, and yes, a bigot.
I've heard a story of Morons forcing their daughters to wear chasity(?) belt underwear, but I didn't think they were "holy". I bet a lot of fathers would probably like to force their daughters to wear them, Mormon or otherwise, LoL!
If it's a choice between a Satanist who thinks that laws actually mean something and a Christian who ignores the distinction between legal and illegal residents in the name of "compassion", then as far as I'm concerned you can start measuring the private quarters of the White House for a place to put a pentagram.
I don’t think either you or zguy are lying.
You are just mistaken in your opinion.
Nothing in his speech suggests you have to support Romney “or else”.
You are completely wrong about the debate question and the entire issue.
The issue at the time was whether the Boy Scouts would allow gay men to be scout leaders.
Mitt supported it. He supported it in 1994, he supported it in 2002, and he gave a vague "I was wrong about some things" around 2004.
Those are the facts that have been admitted to and acknowledged for years.
You are the first person I have ever seen bring up this ridiculous claim that it was not about gay troop leaders, but about gay boys. Why you would fabricate something like that now.... well, it boggles the mind.
Well, outraged is a tad too strong. But you called it moral relativism, as if there is a moral component to blasting a candidates record.
And you can ask any Fred head who has hit Fred the hardest here, and I’m sure the answer will be near unanimous.
It is legitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the son of God?"
But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?"
It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions
Precisely. Romney waffled by trying to declare some religious distinctions (between Mormons and evangelical Christians) irrelevant and others (between theists and atheists) relevant. The latter is a transparent attempt at pandering to the evangelical faction. It won't work, and the attempt to split this hair will alienate people who reject sectarian divisiveness and put off people who are tired of clintonesque semantic games.
LoL! That retard will never live that down. Oprah will NEVER invite him back on her show again, even she thinks he’s missing a few marbles.
I also prefer Duncan Hunter as the most experienced and clear minded genuine conservative on the stage. However, I don’t think Romney bombed by talking about his faith. His faith and Huckabee’s isn’t what’s important to me, but the degree that their beliefs pushes them to engage in liberal politics and social engineering. I don’t think Romney’s speech was directed at the liberal opposition or RINOs and RNC beltway establishment Giuliani supporters or so-called evangelicals, but the broad mainstream of Republicans and conservatives irrespective of religious affiliation. If the pukes in the rat-infested media paid as much attention to the record of success, performance, and clear concise plans of actions of the “second” tier candidates, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo would be the talk of the day. But the diseased and degenerate biased liberal media’s last thought would be to give a conservative fair press coverage and credit.
Oh I’m sure I’ve had a slip up or three. LOL.
Discourses by Brigham Young don't define the faith....the same goes for Martin Luther who has also made some outragous writings (in my opinion) and has had some scandalous histories follow him around.....of course, I could list off some Popes too....and some good old fashion Protestant Leaders that have fallen short of a Christ-Like life.
The truth is found in the Gospels and the Gospels are sufficiant for my understanding of God's nature and his role in my life....but God also reveals to me, in ways that I don't fully understand (but I do accept this as true), direction for my life. Sometimes I make the choice to ignore God will, and follow my own will. I suffer because of this .....
“If we just limit ourselves to the Bible, there can be NO doubt Mormons are Christians.”
If only Mormons meant the same thing as Christians when they use those words, I’d agree with you Edward.
not likely
And the silence is interesting—note that at least 2 Christians have taken a stab at answering the 3 “weird” questions posed to them on this thread.
I’ll add my answers to those:
1) Does Jesus have a penis now? I’d say probably yes. His entire body was resurrected.
2) Is Holy Communion theological cannabilism? Yes, sort of, for the Catholic Christian—not so much for the Protestant Christian. Christians practice it because Jesus commanded it.
3) Do Jews go to heaven? Jews may not “go to heaven” in that they reject Jesus as Messiah, but in a way they are nevertheless “saved” as God’s chosen people. The New Testament makes it clear that God has a plan for the Jews that is different than the plan for other non-Christians.
Keep in mind that Christianity is more than just the Bible. Catholics, for example, were around before the New Testament was ever written.
LOL!
IN order to get what you think it says out of it, you must impose additional facts not in evidence in the question or answer.
You are free to hold any opinion you like, but the facts are simply the facts, and the facts do not themselves support the conclusion you reach, much less give you the credence to claim me a liar or fabricator.
There may well be a quote somewhere from Romney on the issue. When I asked for one, this is what I was given, and it clearly is NOT what the poster promised.
Look, Romney said lots of things in 1994 that I disagree with. I make no apologies for him in that regard. I just think we should stick to what he actually said, or else note that we are giving our interpretation of the facts, rather than the facts.
So, lets follow the history, because I will debate nothing but the specific claims made and my specific response to those claims.
The original poster, at post 57, said this:
His strawman has failed, and Mister “boy scouts must accept gay scoutmasters” and “what position on abortion shall I decide to have this week” desperately needs something to hide behind.I responded asking for evidence that Romney ever said "boy scouts MUST ACCEPT gay scoutmasters". The original poster, at post 157, responded with THIS:
I posted the video the question he was answering regarded board of directorship members. By definition is that not leadership?I will note he already had changed both the scope and object of his challenge. He originally claimed Mitt wanted to force gay scout masters, now he was saying it was "board of directorship members". But still, he was WRONG about the question.
The text of the question and answer are this:
"Mr. Romney, you say you're a moderate on social issues. One who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks, and for gays. In fact you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy. You also sit on the national executive board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy, and if not have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?"
Note the question does NOT ASK about the policy of membership in the "national executive board". That was in reference to Romney's position. The question is about the BSA banning gay members. So it's not about leadership, it's about MEMBERSHIP.
"I have let my views be known," said Romney. "I have been to one board meeting now of the Boy Scouts of America board (as of 1994). I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
OK, remember, the original poster claimed Mitt wanted to FORCE GAY SCOUTMASTERS on the Boy Scouts. As "proof" he gave me a quote from Romney where he says they can do whatever they want -- clearly NOT forcing them. And the quote doesn't mention scoutmasters, or any leadership. Instead, it speaks about what Romney "feels" about "participants". PARTICIPANTS, not SCOUT MASTERS.
If there is a quote from Mitt saying he wants to FORCE GAY SCOUTMASTERS on the boy scouts, produce it. Otherwise, the statement stands unsupported.
Don't step into the middle of a conversation and start calling people liars and misleaders. You are dead wrong about the debate question, I made no comments on "the entire issue", and it is clear that to this point the original poster was non-responsive to the simple request to support his claim that Romney was trying to force Gay Scoutmasters on the Boy Scouts, something that his own supplied quote proves false.
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.