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."
If true, I now have even less respect for "all Christian leadership".
Too bad for you that those religious “kooks” vote, then, isn’t it?
Romney can win as many kudoes in the press that look down on Christians anyway as he likes, but basically coming out with the implication that Christians are intolerant and that’s the reason he isn’t running away with the nomination? yeah, we’ll see if that helps him where it really matters. On the ground in the polling booths.
That attitude along with his liberal record isn’t going to do him favors.
Yes, Christianity does have some strange beliefs—like virgin birth and resurrection—but the point is that the Mormons hold unorthodox, heretical beliefs that are not shared by Christians—and yet Mormons claim to be Christian.
Belief in the Trinity, for example, is an example of an orthodox Christian belief—and Mormons don’t share that.
It’s understandable that you, as an agnostic, find no difference between competing strange beliefs, but for many Christians out there deciding who to vote for, these are important matters.
Some voters may simply choose to vote for orthodox Christians only, because that is an important qualification for them. And that is their right.
Excellent column.
I don’t know if Mormons believe in the virgin birth, but all Christians do—which is to say, all Protestants and Catholics.
I don’t worry about the Catholic Church or any other “Churches”....it’s there job to convince me...and they have failed.
I am not a big booster of negatism..but every time
somebody does anything to appease the naysayers, it
is denigrated by the “experts”...this is BS....I
was so impressed by the speech, I have vowed to- vote
for the guy...he is: best out there, and possibly a
diamond in the rough...his wife and family are all
first class...the hell with the others that use the
old..BS...and think you and I are nitwits..Go Mitt!! JK
Ah you worship the god of touchy feelyness. This conversation has been primarily among followers of the God who is the same today, yesterday, and forever, and who instructs us through his word. I guess Mormons could worship the same god you do, even though their scripture describes a different god than the God Catholics and Protestants follow in their scriptures. Enjoy your experiential god.
Exactly.
I'm a Baptist. I'd have no problem voting for an observant Jew for President, so long as he is a conservative.
But I can't vote for a guy who thinks men can become gods; that Christ is Satan's brother; and that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
I just can't. And it's no wonder Romney doesn't want to get into the theological aspects of LDS. If he did, every rational American would recognize that it's a made-up cult based on the word of one lunatic.
Thanks for that link. I do find them relevant.
I guess you didn't listen to or read very carefully Mitt's speech then.
He twice referred to everyone being a "child of God."
Now the person who made the most of the "Pharisee types" was Jesus. He carefully pointed out to the Pharisees in John, chapter 8, that, no, they weren't children of God & no, they weren't children (spiritual descendents) of Abraham. Their father was the devil.
So for you to accuse others of being "Pharisee types" you better beware what you're saying...you're calling them, in the tradition of Jesus, children of the devil.
Now I know Mormon leaders have consistently done that...Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, & others. I know that the Book of Mormon does that (1 Nephi 14:9-10). But are you really wanting to do that? (especially in light of Mitt's appeal that all are "children of God?")
Why do your links take us to “tinypic.com”. Are you some sort of joker?
I was unaware spelling was subject to whim; I thought it was either right or wrong.
I don’t know what’s magic about the underpants?
Mormons are required to wear magical protective underpants.
Romney refuses to admit it.
Very interesting Point 3. I had never thought about it that way.
Your tag line is hilarious, too. Is that true? Is it a precept of the Mormon faith that everyone becomes a god?
“No it isn’t”
I disagree. Most regular folks don’t care about his religion. It’s not foremost in their mind. Evangelicals who continue to bring it up just look bigoted and small minded.
Now his liberal record is something else entirely. If evangelicals really were only focusing on that, he wouldn’t have needed the speech. I think evangelicals like to they are above the fray in this, but they are right in the middle.
Actually what is exclusive about the Catholic doctrine of virgin birth is that Mary is a perpetual virgin. In other words she did not consummate her marriage with Joseph and never had any other children. In centuries past great pains were taken to create scenarios where Mary’s physical virginity was not marred. Even the act of giving birth to Jesus was given further clarification by saying Jesus did not actually exit the womb via the birth canal (which would have marred Mary’s hymen) but that he was miraculously removed by heavenly angels without the usual mundane birthing process.
I don’t believe Protestants have gone to such lengths to maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary in their lore.
“If true, I now have even less respect for “all Christian leadership”.
To me that is a fine answer, it states your opinion and is accurate, it does not pretend to be something else.
There has been a very successful effort on all these threads to make the Mormon issue appear to be simply a piece of bigotry from a small number of supposed wackos that identify themselves as evangelicals.
The real conversation should be about why “Christianity” identifies Mormonism as non Christian.
Once we accurately label this as the unified Christian position on the Mormon religion, then it brings the discussion to it’s proper level.
I wouldn’t say that evangelicals view “any faith but their own” as a cult.
There are world religions, and then there are cults. I recently read something that argued the main difference between a religion and a cult, besides time and acceptance, is the ability to leave the group without repercussions.
I don’t think many evangelicals view world religions other than Christianity as cults. But the Church of Latter-Day Saints, yes, many of them would label that a cult.
....and I am assuming that you also worship our Father in Heaven......the same Father who created the Heavens and Earth and who's only begotten son, Jesus Christ, was sent to rescue humanity from their sinful nature.....if only we repent our sins to seek God's forgiveness
Uh, Rush isn't Mormon....is he?
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.