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."
Oh, another two things.
1. If Mormonism is condemned for unacknowledged copyings from earlier Scriptures; so is the entire NT canon.
2. “King James translation of the Septuagint”???
[Chortle] Ever heard of the Masoretic text?
Why, you ask? Because demons lie and scripture records them lying in ways that at first appear to be saving professions. But the list you gave of professions can be stated by a lying demon. HOWEVER, the way you phrased the response to my statement that a demon could state all of the things on your list without receiving Christ as ‘soter’, you showed the typical Mormonism Apologist deceit of rephrasing to create misdirection and obfuscate the original point of the debate. How telling ...
I don’t understand why so many people dish crap on Mitt - the Congress usually has a greater effect on people than a president......
Bully! Another person that gets it. Comments worthy of FreeRepublic. Mitt is just one of many candidates for the Republican nomination.
If 15% of the voters paint themselves into a corner and jeopardize the election process by getting someone nominated that isn’t going to win in the general or standing by and not voting because the nominee doesn’t pass their smell test, then 15% are going to put the 85 percent remaining, into the same 7734 upside down and backwards that they are building for themselves.
Of course 50% or so will still be happy after the election no matter who wins, and Congress basically won’t care either way their life goes on no matter who or what the President is. Same with the mainstream media. Just a percentage of the people feel like they don’t belong, kinda like the eight years of WJ Clinton. How soon we forget.
Again, still speculation based on who wins the primary election.
“Expert on early, first millennium Aramaics, but on Brigham Young...you take a pass. How convenient.”
Isn’t it though? We each have our interests - mine happen to be the Scriptures and early Church Fathers.
A Calvinist friend and I once discussed how different my interests were from conventional theological studies since I skipped virtually everything between John of Damascus and Kierkegaard. lol!
"Politics: A subject so interesting and intimidating, it is a wonder that anyone would subject themselves to the shark feed called politics."
I need to get back up on my porch and get out of the way of those 'big dogs' snarling and snapping ... thanks for the reminder.
Hmmm, so YOU believe the biblical texts have been tampered with. How telling. “ ... as far as it’s been translated correctly” comes to mind.
PERSONAL ATTACK ALERT!
Does God have a father?
Are Jesus and Satan brothers?
Was the Garden of Eden in Missouri?
Fair's fair. Will you answer my questions now?
The true one or damnation is it?
Sorry, I don’t get it.
So, I don’t have the right to condemn those who lie and misrepresent my religion while piously cloaking themselves as true Christians?
Actions show the person’s character.
No longer do I tolerate the abhorrent actions of others against me or my religion. If I see you or anyone else continue to lie and misrepresent my religion; rest assured I will hound you and condemn you for the people you are.
Have you seen me condemn or attack other religions in a similar manner? Have I lied, ever, about the true beliefs of other faiths? Have I, ever, misrepresented the true beliefs of those I disagree with? NEVER. So don’t you dare imply I don’t have the right to defend my faith.
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
Right after the "I'm an independent, agnostic, atheistic democrat"...'cause he will need those votes to make up for the Christians.
Come on, Resty. You KNOW you mormons use the JOD to prove YOUR points, and aren’t held to the “Not Authoritative” code.
Okay. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, even though you've refused to answer three simpel, straightforward questions. Now you're endorsing the obfuscatory approach Millet is telling these kids to use?
Yesterday, I gave you straightforward answers to what you admitted were "trick" questions.
Yet you still won't answer mine. Your silence says more than Millet and his promise of double-talk as the best approach.
"It is SO Clintonian....for "the meaning of IS.....IS"....read, "Well, you see, Brigham REALLY didn't MEAN what he said, but if he DID mean what he said, he wouldn't SAY it today because even when he said it, he wasn't speaking as a Prophet, because he was off-the-prophecying-clock at the time he SAID that, but ON-the prophecying-clock when he said OTHER things.
THEN, if you ask, "Well, what was the prophecying-ON-the clock SCHEDULE", you will be told, "it depends on WHAT THE PROPHECY IS...IS!
HOUND THREAT ALERT!
I often wonder about the claim that any discussion is an “attack” on any given faith.
If you are a believer of your faith, you do not need discussion with others. Others who disagree with you cannot tear your faith asunder. I see faith as a personal committment to God... a dialogue with God. And no person can come between me and the fellowship that I have with Him.
It is my job as a believer to hold tight to the principles that God has given to me, through faith. It is not my job to attempt to convert those who turn a deaf ear to my arguments. I let them go on their merry way.
At the same time, a believer of a different faith cannot win me over to his side. My faith is grounded in the truth of the Lord. I have nothing to fear from another of a different faith.
Those who call for censorship or use personal attacks are not winning souls to their faith.
And perhaps, that is the blessing in disguise. If they continue to wail and moan about persecution, that is their own personal struggle. It has nothing to do with me and my faith in the Lord.
You seem to do an adequate job of lying about your own Chruch doctrine.
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.