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.
Nana: Where does the COTUS say that ???
Resty: your posts are an excellent example....
_____________________________________________________
COTUS: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment, Constitution of the United States.
Since you said that in an attempt to violate my 1st Amendmemnt right to freedom of speech, do not bother to mention the COTUS again in this thread...
Thank you. I can vote single-issue if I so desire. Pro-life, Anti-gremlin, anything I want. It's my vote. I appreciate your understanding this basic American right.
Waste of time attempting to be nice to you...
THat is the kind of thing that has swept you to the curb and lost you any credibility...
And now back to the subject of the thread...
Romney, mormonism, Christianity
Oh I’m sorry, I interpreted your ‘get lost’ post to be telling me to ‘get lost.’ I didn’t realize you were trying to be nice...
Apolology accepted...
You are free to stay as long as you want...
:)
I was merely trying to help you...
There are lots of threads in FR about the Moslems where your knowledge and concerns would be a great addition..
At least we know there are some fighters here on FR... ;)
Oh I’m sorry, I interpreted your ‘get lost’ post to be telling me to ‘get lost.’ I didn’t realize you were trying to be nice...
***
TN wanted to share her medication...
You are grouping modern “gnostic” revivals with the Gnostics of the early church. They are no where near the same. Modern “gnostic” groups are much more akin to Wicca.
Christology is/was vary rarely a factor in fractures/splits.
Most splits, throughout Chruch history, occurred due to Soteriology, Primacy, Eschatology, or most often in the case of Protestants, matters of organization or practice, NOT Christology.
I see modern day Gnostic groups (which again vary greatly from early Gnostics) as just as much of a threat as Mormonism.
placemarker
Fine, and largely agreed, although I didn't limit differences to just Christology.
"I see modern day Gnostic groups (which again vary greatly from early Gnostics) as just as much of a threat as Mormonism."
...and since you earlier declared Mormons an equivalent or greater threat than Islam, you see modern day Gnosticism as an equivalent threat to Christianity as Islam? I don't believe that you believe that.
Just as you misconstrue so much, Resty, you've also misconstrued candidacy eligibility (all the constitution says is that an eligible candidate cannot be kept from running on religious test grounds). I mean, even Lds apostle Dallin Oaks conceded reality on this when he said:
"...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose."
(You don't think your "apostle" was wrong on that point, do you, Resty?)
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: Resty, you confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
Until you can address and deal with each as they are, separate issues, then yes, I cannot satisfy you.
But you have the facts exactly right.
The difference is spiritual vs. physical danger.
Physically, Islam is a greater threat. At least they are honest in their views of us. Spiritually, I agree they are a threat, but not more than Mormonism.
Groups that claim Christianity (Modern day Gnosticism, Mormonism, JW’s etc) yet teach a different Gospel, I consider more of a threat spiritually than even Islam.
Here is why. Islam is straight forward about how they view Jesus, and how they view Christians. Other groups (like those mentioned above) are “wolves in sheeps clothing”.
One of the marks of a Theological cult (not speaking of Anthropological or Sociological definitions here) is the idea of “milk before meat”. That initiates (converts) are only told so much prior to joining. This leads many, who have no Biblical literacy, into a pseudo-Christian group that is harmful. One of my friends likened the methods of the LDS to “spiritual rape”. People join being told one set of things, only to find out many other beliefs/doctrines/practices. The pain of leaving leads many to Atheism (about 50%).
And while the LDS no longer practice blood atonement for those who have left, they do practice “familial atonement”, meaning when one family member leaves they are often shunned.
Quite frankly, I consider Mormonism (with it’s magical garments, handshakes, temple rituals and idea that they alone have “true” knowledge)is very close a modern day Gnostic group.
My medicine is Jesus Christ the Lord...
THe Jesus of the Bible..
My savation, my healer..
The laughter and joy of the Lord...
The LORD God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk on my high places Habakkuk 3:19
The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. Exodus 15:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. Psalm 18:2
A merry heart does good like a medicine Proverbs 17:22
I am overwhelmed with joy in the LORD my God! For he has dressed me with the clothing of salvation and draped me in a robe of righteousness Isaiah 61:10
The Lord said, If you will diligently listen to the voice of the LORD your God, and will do that which is right in his sight, and will give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases on you, which I have brought on the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that heals you. Exodus 15:25
Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed. 1 Peter 2:24
Praise the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits— who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases, Who satisfies your mouth with good things; so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s. Psalm 103:2,3,5
But they that wait on the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. Isaiah 40:31
I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers. 3 John 2
Very interesting, reaganaut. Thank you for replying to my question. The dates you mention are interesting to me, as I was last active in church in the mid 1980s. (My own issues and shortcomings have since made it very difficult for me to attend.)
At that time, the Mormons were making a great headway in conversions on cultural Christians - those who were not really grounded, had no personal exerience or doctrinal understanding or interest. The fact that Mormons appeared to walk the walk with more integrity was persuasion enough for those folks. I remember one deacon who did not know what the doctrine of the Trinity was.
Anyway, the internet was not a factor at that time. The rise of the internet and erosion of the LDS as you present is most interesting. Again, I sincerely thank you for your reply.
placemarker
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.