Posted on 12/13/2007 5:43:42 AM PST by Kaslin
When Mike Huckabee asked a New York Times' reporter, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers," he crossed a line he cannot uncross.
Previous to this he had played a game of teasing the anti-Mormon vote, and had been called on it by Charles Krauthammer and others.
But Huckabee had maintained deniability.
No more. Huckabee's obvious attempt to salt the mine and get the reporter to carry antt-Mormon rhetoric into the paper without Huckabee's fingerprints on it backfired, and the transparent attempt to use the MSM to further the anti-Mormon message was repulsive.
Until he crossed that line, Huckabee remained a viable protest vote for conservative evangelicals who distrusted Romney's conversion on life issues. The hard core anti-Mormon fanatics are actually few in number and many of them are on the left --like Larry O'Donnell-- and Romney had successfully put the issue of his faith behind him with his speech at the Bush Library.
But Romney still needed to connect with movement social conservatives leery of his embrace of the cause of the unborn. Until he unfurled the banner of Christian identity politics, Huckabee provided these voters with a place to park their vote, even though the effect would be to elevate Rudy Guiliani. Some of these values voters were going to vote their conscience, regardless of the result.
But there are millions and millions of evangelicals who will want no part of the appeal to "vote against the Mormon."
With his recent rise in the polls, Huckabee began to experience a scrutiny of his record that was already eroding his appeal to social conservatives. The Committee for Growth blasted Huckabee for his record of hiking taxes in Arkansas. The former Arkansas governor looked not ready for prime time when he was caught flat-footed on the NIE. Huckabee's advocacy for Wayne DuMond could not be fast-talked away, and the argument for isolating victims of the AIDs virus set off alarms as beyond any reasonable position even though Huckabee made the proposal in 1992. Suddenly Huckabee began to appear as a light-weight, and the charming,,joking second-tier fun guy took on a distinctively different look.
Then comes the below the belt hit on Mormons, so profoundly off-putting to Republicans who believe in the big tent as well as to evangelicals and Catholics who know the gulf between their theology and that of the LDS Church but who would no more verbally assault their Mormons friends, neighbors and business colleagues than they would any other American different from them on matters of faith. It just itsn't done. "Republican voters will not tolerate attacks on faith," pollster Frank Luntz declared on my program yesterday. I think he is right, and I hope he is right.
Such attacks on different religious beliefs have been part of American history, but aren't part of the American future. The common creed of moral convictions that Romney referred to his his College Station speech on faith now includes as one of its tenets that you do not mock or insult another person's religion.
Buck Mike Huckabee did. To the world's most influential newspaper.
Huckabee ought to have apologized during the Des Moines Register debate, but he didn't, perhaps waiting for the moderator to provide a moment to show some feigned regret.
So he went to CNN immediately thereafter and asked for forgiveness.
Will that put Huckabee's anti-Mormon genie back in its bottle. I don't think so. "That which is said while drunk has been thought out beforehand," goes the old saying. In the modern media world, candidates for the presidency don't say careless things to the New York Times. It was a premeditated aside, an attempt to get a virus into circulation. It didn't work, but it did tell us a lot about Mike Huckabee.
“I would never vote for him, for that reason...I couldn’t care less about his religion.”
Here’s why I can’t vote for a non-Christian:
2John 1:9-11 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
“Flip-flopper? That label belongs on Huckabee ...”
That label belongs to both of them.
Well you certainly have the goods on him. I don’t support him and am not voting for him in the primary. Would you vote for him if he got the nomination?
Is it true, as I’ve heard, that Mike Huckabee is SLICK Willy on steroids?
Well, I’m the type who’d vote for a flea-infested homeless drunk over Hillary, so yeah.
But in Huckabee’s or Rudy’s case, I’d have to vote for them on an empty stomach.
Huckabee is our worst possible nomination choice. He is simply God-awful.
“I think Huckabee is getting himself into a position where if its a choice of Obama and Huckabee...three quarters of the nation will vote Obama.”
Probably true. Huckster would especially weak against Obama.
You've done a great job of summarizing what I could not put into words.
The New York Slimes has an agenda of presenting a false choice to people - either we get secularism, or we get theocracy.
Romney completely undercuts that by presenting, very articulately, how the tradition of religious liberty in America has been neither, and presenting it as superior to either secularism or theocracy. SO IMHO, Romney’s position, a mainstream conservative position on the role of faith in public life, completely undercuts what the Times is doing.
“All of ya’ll are missing the point. Try researching the LDS teachings. Here’s a starting point.”
Wow. YOU are missing the point. Try researching the real important things about a candidate - like their personal character, competence and vision - and quit judging a candidate solely on the sect he belongs to. That’s a shallow and uninformed way to vote.
Huck's comment weren't an attack on religious freedom, they were an attack, poorly concealed as an innocent question, on Mormonism. Fine and dandy. The Mormons can attack back, and allow the marketplace of ideas to decide what faiths Americans follow.
The problem is, there is zero place in American national politics for a politician who wants to simultaneously bid for secular power over all Americans, and engage in theological attacks on the faith of millions of those Americans. The merits of Huck's attack are irrelevant, the fact that he made it disqualifies him from serious consideration as a Presidential candidate.
“Unlike a lot of people, I think Romney’s religion is a discussion worth having.”
“OK. But in the context of a presidential campaign?”
“Sure, I’m fine with that.”
Some of us think there are more important issues to talk about. I can think of about 100 other issues from Abortion to Zimbabwe of more importance and relevence. It’s a little weird to think that digging into Mormon doctrine, which has no bearing on how anyone will behave as President, is worth the time, but Romney has helpfully attentive to those demanding some attention to the “Mormon question”.
His eloquent and heartfelt speech laid out where he stands on the matter:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Faith_In_America_Address
“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
“As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I’m fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
“There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it’s more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
“Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they’re right, so be it.” - Mitt Romney
Ok, but given these threads, some of us think that this is a pretty important issue, too.
Mormon doctrine, which has no bearing on how anyone will behave as President
I'm guessing that you aren't Christian, or else I am very surprised that you would make such a comment; man does not live by bread alone. A person's religion absolutely has bearing on how he will behave. It is part of his personality and makeup. It is part of his belief system that will influence how he makes decisions. That's important to me. I want to know where my leader will place his faith and his life. Is it in the hands of Jesus Christ? If not, I have grave doubts about that person's viability as a effective leader.
Also, note that Romney, by his carefully chosen language, tacitly admits that it will affect his behavior as President (which is simply acknowledging the obvious):
Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.
I presume that Romney is a smart guy. He's probably got smart people working for him and writing his speeches. I assume that each word was chosen carefully. Notice what he said. No authorities from the Mormon Church would influence him. He doesn't say that he won't be influenced by his faith or Mormon teachings. He's just saying that he won't let the Mormon church call the shots.
Romney knows his beliefs will affect his behavior as President, so why shouldn't it be part of the debate? His religion would be part of the debate if he were Muslim, would it not? Why is Mormonism different?
Why does it matter?
Say what you want pal, we’ve had eight years of someone from Hope Ark. and I’ll pass on another eight. Huckabee is as shifty as Clinton except he doesn’t have a Hillary around his neck.
Wrong. Proof that excessive prejudice so easily leads you astray. No matter, I will pray for you and your voting decision.
details of Mormon doctrine and the values that his Mormon faith have influenced him are two different things. Those doctrinal details are not relevent, and the values he lives by, informed by his faith, are values that you and I and he share in almost all respects. For you not to see nor acknowledge that is narrow-minded. So your points are amply answered in Romney's speech.
“I want to know where my leader will place his faith and his life. Is it in the hands of Jesus Christ?”
YOUR QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED IN MITT ROMNEY’S SPEECH:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Faith_In_America_Address
“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I’m fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it’s more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
“Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they’re right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
“There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
...
“Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
“They’re not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They’re the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
“We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we’re all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’
“The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It’s an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.
“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.
“No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
“These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I’m moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...’
“My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.” - Mitt Romney
Actually, that's not true. There are some very large, and very old, heretical sects of Christians who reject the Trinity. There are the Assyrian Christians of Iraq and the Thomas Christians India who are Nestorian heretics. Most Christians East of Israel and West of China are Nestorian. Then there are monophysite Christians, also known as "Oriental Orthodox," throughout the Middle East, most common in Egypt, where they are called "Coptic Christians." There are hundreds of millions of these people, so Nestorians and Monophysites together are going to make up a pretty substantial chunk of all Christians. Globably, I'd say they make up at least 10% of all Christians, but the exact number is hard to come by.
In the first couple centuries after Christ, the various gnostic heretics had some very strange doctrines, some of them baring some resemblence to Mormon doctrines, who rejected the Trinity, yet were still referred to as Christian, albeit heretical ones, by their Trinitarian contemporaries.
The Arian heretics are commonly referred to by their contempraries as Christians. Historians refer to them as "Arian Christians." They rejected the Trinity, and at one point constituted a majority.
Whether we call Mormons Christian or not is a semantic question, IMHO. There are good arguments on either side, but I don't view the question as all that important. However, the argument that they don't deserve the label because they reject the Trinity is just plain absurd, because there are plenty of other sects who also reject the Trinity and we do not hesitate to call the Christian.
I see that you left out the rest of my quote. If you're a Christian, I simply cannot fathom how you can believe that a person's religion will not affect their behavior.
Tell me, do you think that you personally are capable of fulfilling your Biblical charges without the aid and assistance of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit? Do you think that any man is capable of living a Godly life without being filled with the power of the Holy Spirit?
If so, why? If not, why do you expect that Mitt Romney can, enough, at least, to say that his beliefs don't affect his behavior?
As I've pointed out before, we cannot both be right. Mormonism does not believe in the same Jesus Christ in which Christian religions place their faith. One of us is wrong, and I simply cannot, in good conscience, vote for an individual who will not place his faith in the true Christ.
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.