My advice to you is...
Posted on 11/30/2009 6:01:03 PM PST by delacoert
I’ll just leave this here…
Before a defense of any kind of religious discrimination, one ought to make all of the necessary disclaimers: of course I oppose government-sponsored discrimination, and I certainly would not support the kind of absurd treatment described by Steven Reinhart in his piece featured below. That being said, there is a legitimate case to be made for judging any candidate for office by his religious convictions.
In late 2007, Mitt Romney made his somewhat-famous speech on religion, where he spoke the following words:
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Similarly, Romney has stated: “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.”
If freedom requires religion, if his Mormon faith sustains his life and he will be true to those practices, then I’m at an utter loss as to why we should ignore Romney’s religious beliefs when evaluating his fitness for the White House.
We ask plenty of questions of any Evangelical Christian candidate: what do his beliefs about the nature of God, the nature of the cosmos, and the meaning of man’s life mean for his potential tenure in office? But for whatever reason, these questions are looked at as unnecessarily piercing and prejudiced when asked of a member of a minority faith.
When Sarah Palin gave her fumbling answer about Israel’s settlements, several commentators jumped on her faith, wondering whether she subscribed to the bizarre but potent sect of modern Christianity that believes in the imminence of the End Times. Will anyone ask Mitt Romney about the oddities of the dogma of the Mormon Church? There are plenty of Mormon doctrines that may strike people as a bit odd — and rightly so. It is established in the church that the devout can reach the upper echelons of heaven and eventually become gods themselves, able to create their own universes and govern them as they see fit (all while supervised by the One True God). Why is it that when I bring this up to Romney fans, I am dismissed as a bigot?
As an atheist, I both understand and accept that in a predominantly Christian society, my thoughts on religion are necessarily going to open me up to questions. If I were to ever run for office (don’t count on that, by the way), I would not expect my supporters would try to ward off any questions about my atheism with the victim-card of discrimination. One’s philosophy of religion contributes profoundly to his worldview and thus is a completely valid criterion by which to partially evaluate a candidate’s fitness for office.
I view all religions as equally bizarre and irrational. But mainstream Christianity is often adopted as a cultural guise, meant for purposes of assimilation with the majority. Probe most self-described Christians and you’ll find plenty of deviation from standard dogma. Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted Evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.
Do you have proof that his family dodged the draft??
You’re suggesting that there’s no Christological difference between the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, or the Coptic Church? That there’s no difference between the Chalcedonian and Monophysitic interpretations? That Gnostic Christianity’s belief is not significantly different then say, the Lutheran concept of sola fide? That there aren’t different versions of the Gospel which include different histories, different concepts of salvation? Please.
- - - - - - - - -
No MAJOR differences, no. And I have already pointed out that Gnostic Christianity is not a viable Christology. That was determined by the early church councils.
I am VERY familiar with the different (non cannonical) Gospels and writings (Nag Hammadi and the like). I taught a University course in the subject. There are reasons these writings were not included in the cannon, partly because their Christology was defective. Another reason was because of their lack of “apostolic authority” as determined by the Catholic Church.
Nonsense.
with attitudes like this it no longer a Republic it is a mockery it is a tyranny because all have to brown nose or walk on egg shells...
_____________________________________________
Resty did you ever live in the Utah territory at any time during the 30 years 1845-1875 ???
You would have experienced what you just said there
Well, since it was the Lord whom Joseph was quoting, I don’t think there’s any problem with His knowledge.
Nope; it was a PERSONAGE - NOT the LORD.
NAH....it was Smith’s desire for money and fame talkin’!
- - - - -
Or maybe just the magic mushrooms he ate.
"Now I know you dont have an ego... and I know you are humble... Because YOU told us so..."
Actually, I didn't say that...you're even wrong about that, LOL!
your posts are an excellent example....
It is one thing to cream ones opponent ideas and actions
_____________________________________________________
Yes what was it that Joey Smith learned about Presbyterianism that was not true ???
Why did he “cream” the Presbyterians ???
My advice to you is...
Go to a Moslem thread or start your own with a vanity...
This thread is about Romney, mormonism and Christianity...
Care to point that one out for us?
***
The no religious test clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States
Do you have proof any of them served ???
Years, wars ???
Does this mean, to you, that the voter is prohibited from considering the religion of a candidate as factor? Do we have such a freedom or not?
Talk about SOP & deflection! They were about religious matters mostly. However, even if they weren’t, they were/are Christian churches murdering each other in the name of the Lord. How does that suit you?
They all believe in the Trinity, they’re all supposedly saved b/c they believe!
- - - - - - - - - -
When did you get your PhD in Church History? There were many other reasons for the fights, as I said.
And not everyone who professes to be a Christian is one, Mormon Church case in point. There are many who, while claiming to be Christians, live in the world. Murder is never Christian, and those who do it in the name of the Lord, take his name in vain.
Belief in the TRINITY is not what saves you. Belief in the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the CROSS for all sin is what is required.
And for the most part, there is much agreement and conviviality among traditional Christians.
THank you for quoting the COTUS...
Now we wont see any complaints from you about Barry’s religious beliefs or connections will we ???
Thank you!
The person does have an right to be an jackass...
Ah, so now we're in a semantic game about what consitutes a 'major' difference...suffice it to say it has been enough fracture the church into dozens of different demoninations...sects if you like,LOL. And as for the Gnostics, my point is taken - for even though YOU regard them as a "non-viable Christology," they may see things differently.
"There are reasons these writings were not included in the cannon, partly because their Christology was defective. Another reason was because of their lack of “apostolic authority” as determined by the Catholic Church."
Agreed, but then do you view the Gnostics, for instance, as being as great a threat to Christianity as Islam? Probably not.
My advice to you is...
Amazingly enough the primary source for us so called “antis” are the web sites and publications of the LDS itself as well as it other operations such as BYU...
- - - - - -
Yep. Their own writings damn them.
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.