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."
The arguments in the “screed” I posted, while I don’t agree with them, are things I have heard time again from such Protestant sources. From the Catholic point of view they are error ridden, but I haven’t met a Baptist minister yet who would disagree with the arguments.
Poing to an excellent essay
Uh, no. The "new testament" is actually the Gospel of Christ, the inspired word as written by the apostles. It's the foundation of the early church(s) Pauls, Peters, John etc. They were the first "Catholics" Or at least Peter was, since Catholics are all extentions of Peter's Church.
Later, these books were canonized to form what we now call the new testement.
And no, Jesus doesn't have a penis. No flesh shall enter heaven remember. Read Revelations as well. Sheesh.
>>You haven’t noticed some of the flinching regarding the questions about Creation?<<
I don’t know what you mean. I don’t do TV or radio and only know what I read on the internet. I don’t plan on voting for him so I don’t really read anything he says unless it is a controversial article (like this one) that I read for entertainment only.
“That leaves us with the two best men in the race; Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter”
Duncan has a problem with Romney’s declared “goal” (his word) of fully integrating homosexuals and lesbians fully into the military.
They clash on Mitt and guns: “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
Duncan isn’t thrilled about this: “With these 11 million people [here illegally], let’s have them registered, know who they are....those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship.”
Lowell Sun, 3/30/06
Duncan sneers at this: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
bookmarked
bmflr
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Pinging FRiends
“By their shorts ye shall know them.”
What do you mean “evangelicals”? My uncle the bishop also uses the phrase “primitives”.
So what do mean?
BUMP
I’m tempted to just whack you but before I go through the trouble, why don’t you find out more about my competency concerning Mormon beliefs before attempting to enter into a debate with me? http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id20.htm
All of volume one is uploaded - just go to the TOC to see the relevant chapters (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id24.htm ). Portions of volumes 2 and 3 are also available.
If, after examining these chapters, you still think I’m either lying or just ignorant about LDS doctrines, feel free to try me.
??? Geez, you really don’t understand salvation by Grace, or the LDS concept of salvation, if you think effort and obedience has no place in it. One cannot be a “follower” of Christ, if one doesn’t even attempt to “follow” him by obedience.
I think you exaggerate.
Unless every Baptist minister you meet (how many is that, exactly?) is a stupid hick, they wouldn't have criticisms of Catholicism that were on the level of ignorance of the stuff you posted.
How many sins do you fail to realize you commit each day? How successful are you at being 100% obedient? Do fail even a little? When do you imagine your spirit will be cleansed from unrighteousness? Do you have to have Mormon authorized baptism to enter into God’s presence now or in some where/when?
As is their blinding support for Huckabee.
Been there and read your blog, months ago when you tried to act all high and mightier than everyone else. Mormons are NOT known for their humility.
You aren’t even on FAIR or website formerly known as FARMS. You have no authority. Just ask any Mormon.
Awesome!
I should say that my experience is restricted to Southern Baptists.
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.