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."
This is being spun, rightly or wrongly, as the only reason Mitt had to make this speech is because evangelicals are too blinded by religion to make rational choices. I’ve already seen and heard it. Not in the media, but with normal folks. Most people don’t view religion as a major factor in their politicians and this is being used to show how bigoted the evangelicals, and by extension, the GOP is.
Mitt is coming out looking better and the evangelicals are lookings like religious kooks.
I agree and tried to make a similar point on this thread. These things however didn't drive me away from religion. Instead, it just made it much more personal for me and made me less dependent on others and their organizations and exact interpretation of books that have been translated and retranslated by fallible humans.
This article is absurd. It basically follows the format “True Romney said he likes apple pie and loves his mother, and all politicians have said that, but ....” And then we can hear reason being tortured as the bizarre criticism unfolds. Ridiculous.
Rush would have spelled "speech" correctly, as he keeps notes in his magical Mormon underpants.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....” And that’s good enough for me.
You know, them. Somewhere. Out there, up in the hills. Or 'holler' as they call'm. You know, the millions of black tooth stumped, snake charming, pint bottle booze in the preachers coat pocket Eee-van-jell-icles. Those types.
High school graduates. Biscuit and gravy eaters, daughters in Daisy Dukes( not that there is anything wrong with that ), moonshiners, cousin marrying, jug eared.
We all know them. Somewhere. There's a hundred millions of them. Any moment they're ready to descend upon slick city fellers and shoot them with their squirrel guns. So, don't align yourself with these hill/swamp/ strawmen.
just maybe I spelt speach the way I wanted to.....and maybe I don’t know what’s magic about the underpants? Where did this term come from?
“This discussion of who is in and who is out is probably not something that any person is qualified to make so statements like Mormons aren’t Christian just seem preposterous to me.”
People keep pretending that this is just a personal thought, but in reality this is the official position of all Christian leadership.
Whether we are Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Southern Baptist or whatever, we should know that the official position of our church is that Mormonism is a non Christian cult.
Where are the queries about Joseph Smith’s regard for Muhammed?
““I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ””
Is Romney able to discern the difference between Jasser and members of the political jihadist CAIR or would the beliefs of the founder of his religion get in the way?
Huck -> Gee whiz, Huck Finn
Mitt -> Large wallet, Richy Rich
Huck -> Can talk about his faith all he wants
Mitt -> Can’t talk about his faith without alienating
those whose support he needs. He avoids it.
Huck -> Quick on his feet, comes across as authenic
in that he believes his words
Mitt -> Corporate speak, measured words, wanting to
say just the right thing. Any day, there will be rumors
out of the camp that some want to “let Mitt be Mitt”.
Huck -> Always pro-life
Mitt -> Newcomer to the party
disclaimer: I’m not for either...
Huckabee has found his own supporters.
Romney is insinuating that he might lose because of bigotry. As Howie Carr said this morning he thinks, “I can’t believe that I’m losing to this guy.”
Romney will lose because of his liberal past. Sure there are some who will never vote for him because of his religion. That number is tiny.
The more voters think about why Romney gave the speech, the more ticked off they will be.
Some folks on here are doing a pretty good job of confirming the media’s characterization of evangelicals as religious nut bags even without the liberals help.
The whole point to me is to see if a man lives by his faith or not. I have a problem with Mitt ever supporting abortion in the execution of his public duties because abortion is a sin and the church goes to great lenghts not just to teach that it is wrong, but to help reduce them through the church adoption agency and teaching abstinence until marriage in the first place.
I am obviously not a methodist, but I found it comforting that GWB prays regularly especially during the phase leading up to our invasion of Iraq. Lets don't confuse the issue, its really not or shouldn't be the Mormons vs the other churches, it is people of faith vs those who worship man and govt as the highest authority.
"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." This fine point is purposely blurred on Internet forums by the Romney campaign army. Mitt Romney, from 'most' perspectives, is a moral man, exemplary in fact on many issues of personal living. But if his religion is pretending to be restored Christianity, that is vastly more antithetical to the gospel of Grace since Mormonism is founded upon earning exaltation (which is Mormon code for 'allowed into God's presence', corresponding to the Christian concept of Salvation); to the extent one merits salvation, it is not Grace of God offered only in Christ Jesus. Grace (from the Greek woird translated) is unmerited favor, and Peace is cessation of againstness. These are the essence of Christianity and neither fits with the Mormon conceptualization of Joseph Smith/Brigham Young theology.
As to tolerance, I tolerate fools and criminals every day as I wend my way through life, by not exposing the fools and ignoring minor criminality. But big crime, like thievery of a store or bank, or pummeling a person unjustly, well, I carry my eight round clip and one in the pipe to respond if needed in .45 specifics.
I'm growing more intolerant every day, come to think of it. I don't need to tolerate bigoted bigotry (reverse bigotry) as a means to hide a feckless northeastern liberal's history so he can slip in as the republican nominee. I will factor his religious affiliation into my calculations as I damn well please regardless of his whine for tolerance of his cult.
I know Mormons are Christians.....it's just there are a bunch of "Pharasee types" that like to tout how great they are in God's eyes. Many also like to show other folks how pius they are by pointing to others and declairing them unworthy. .....truth is usually obvious, "Ye shall know them by their fruits....."
No it isn't. Evangelicals are still focusing on his liberal record. As well they should. 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.
Exactly! And notice some supporters of his on this very board have been doing just this. Running around and claiming we're religiously intolerant. That we are Bigots.
Screw that.
I didn't buckle to Bush when he called us sexists, elites and racists and I'm not bowing down to Romney and his supporters and accepting the premise if we dont support him or acknowledge Mormonism as "Christian" that we're somehow intolerant of mormons in public office. Forget that. I'm not denying my faith to make another feel good.
Romney is a flip flopping liberal and that alone should dsqualify him. It does for me.
All Romney did was anger a lot of Christians with that speech.
“actually - I know you are wrong.”
Then convince the Catholic church and all the other Christian Churches, not me.
I’ve always liked Father Morris, and now I like him even more for agreeing with the very statements I have made here on FR regarding “The Religion Speech”.
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.