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."
Like it or not, evangelicals have repeatedly made statements, even here on FR, that show that they are intolerant of Mormonism and that’s why they won’t vote for him. In that case it’s just stating the obvious.
I see nothing in Mitt’s speech that looks down on Christians, or describes them as intolerant. You’re inserting your own preconcieved notions where they don’t exist. And you wonder why this is reflects poorly on evangelicals!
“Why do your links take us to “tinypic.com”. Are you some sort of joker?”
I don’t know, it shows on my screen, try this.
http://www.catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
You state that “most people don’t view religion as a major factor in their politicians.” Are you so sure about that? Or just most people that you know?
If so, that’s kind of like how news reporters were so surprised that Nixon won because “nobody they knew” voted for him.
I don't know, but he's shilling for one.
That said, I have to agree with Podhoretz that it's almost always a mistake for a pol to play defense instead of offense, it just highlights whatever you're defending against and doesn't win you any new supporters.
Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech: Mesmerizing the Masses
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/
Hell of a speech, but he lost. Mitt will lose too, because he might as well be a Democrat, Rudy also.
Democrats won’t vote for them and neither will conservatives, so neither will get out of the gate.
Politics requires only the ability to count, and those here
trying to tell you that 2+2 are 5 . . . all silly-billies.
“And you wonder why this is reflects poorly on evangelicals!”
Would some one post a list of who the evangelical churches are?
Rush Limbaugh: Mitt Romney's Inspiring Speech.... "I thought he showed today his ability to confront, to articulate, to persuade, and to lead."
James Dobson: “Gov. Romney’s speech was a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message was inspirational."
David Brody: Someone wake me up! I could have sworn this was December 2007. But today in College Station, Texas, as I watched Mitt Romney deliver his long awaited faith speech with American flags draped behind him, it felt like January 2009.
Richard Land: “I think that it will do for him what Sen. Kennedy’s speech did for him,”
MSNBC Host Reactions: Joe Scarborough said Romney “hit this thing out of the park,” political analyst and regular contributor Pat Buchanan said “I don’t know how he could have done any better” and that Hardball host Chris Matthews said, “I heard greatness.”
Patrick Buchanan: If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library.
Krauthammer (Video): “Romney did exactly what he had to do”
Rev Lou Sheldon: "The root of the issue is religious liberty. Kennedy passed the test and Romney passed the test today"
Roger Simon called Romney’s speech a “stellar performance” that was a “very smart calculation” by his campaign at an “Early State Primary Countdown”
Hugh Hewitt: "Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece."
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot” ~~Mitt Romney
All good reasons why the Republican Party cannot and will not nominate Romney.
People should read the Book of Mormon. Ordinary Christians would be shocked by the preposterous theology put forth in it. I was given this Book by two fine young men who rang my doorbell here in PA. Being a compulsive reader, I went through it cover to cover. It was only after doing this that I realized what Mormonism is all about.
It is really a cult. I cannot believe that a “good Mormon,” such as Mitt puts himself out to be, would turn his back on the tenets and theology of this Book when push comes to shove in political life.
I think that if someone was asked what the top three things they would want in a President would be, I think a belief in God MAY be one of the top three. I do not think a specific religion would be.
Oh, yes. And that only scratches the surface.
I knew about a few of their quirky beliefs. The book that opened my eyes to the full-on craziness of LDS theology was American Massacre by Sally Denton.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Massacre-Tragedy-Mountain-September/dp/0375412085
In it, I learned about Mitt's great-grandfather, Parley Pratt, a polygamist wife-stealer who was one of Joseph Smith's original "apostles."
You can't make this stuff up....only Joseph Smith could make this stuff up.
LoL!
I agree—I too am going to factor in Romney’s religious affiliation into my calculations when deciding who to vote for. His Mormonism is a *big* negative for me but I still might vote for him, and I’ll definitely vote for him in the general election if he is the Republican nominee.
If you don't only because of his religion.
I won't vote for him, but because of his policies.
Au contrair. He needed to bring it up because they were focusing on his record. Romney brought the topic up, not the evangelicals he is attacking.
not that it matters that much his support of homosexual access to children and abortion are too big for him to hide from.
LOL!
Yeah, I’m sure there several in that group who would like to make caricatures of Christians like that — and — perhaps use a bit of that “de-programming” methodology on those misguided Christians...
Let me ask you a question. Do you think if President Bush were asked about the precepts of his Methodist denomination, he would refuse? Additionally, why do you think Romney flat-out refuses to discuss the specific tenets of LDS?
The official position of all Christian leadership—defining what is and what isn’t orthodox Christianity—goes back to the Council of Nicaea in AD 325!
When Mormons decided to reject orthodox Christianity and start up another religion, they knew exactly what they were doing. . .”heresy” sounds strong but Mormons are indeed heretics by definition.
The fact is, some of them are. It's not only Mormons who think they will get their own planet to pick apples on and lord over their harem of wives, some evan-gel-ickles say you get your own star, or entire universe.
I don’t care if he answers it or not.
Let me ask you a question - why hasn’t anyone asked that of any President? Should that now be a standard question?
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.