Judge Romney By His Religion? I Do It, and So Should You.

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.

The LDS understood when the Late president Hinckley said we believe in a different Jesus it was the Jesus who said

If ye Love Me Keep my Commandments!
___________________________________________________

THe Jesus of the Christian Bible said that...

But Hinckley never quoted the Christian Jesus ...

He said another jesus...

If Hinckley understood that he also meant that the LDS were to follow that other jesus instead...

The mormon one...the one Joey Smith invented

Mormonism doesnt keep the commandments of the Christian Jesus...

Joey Smith said that the Christian Jesus was an abomination...

He said the Christian Bible was an abomination..

he said the Christians were an abomination...

Christianity was too confining for Joey Smith...too many Thou shalt nots...

Joey Smith rejected the Jesus of the Bible and invented his own to have an excuse to sin...

Joey Smith did everything the Jesus of the Bible tells us not to...

illict sex, murder, stealing other peoples wives, belongings, land, making himself lord, and boasting he was greater than Jesus etc..

IN other words right there you have a situtation of good shall be called evil and evil will be called good...

Joey smith called the Christian Jesus and Christianity evil and his homemade mormon gods and religion good...

Ok then. You keep voting based on someones’ religion. How’s that worked out so far?

Grunthor, did you know that 78% of Republicans & 62% of Americans (even 55% of Democrats) say that a candidate's religion is either "very" or "somewhat" important to them as voters? (2006 Rasmussen poll; for exact citation, see end of this post)

You're not castigating the majority of voters, are you? (BTW, 92% of Evangelicals think a candidate's religion is either very or somewhat important to them).

Now why do you think this % of people are so savvy about this aspect of a candidate? Simply put, because other-worldly commitments are a reflection upon character and discernment -- discernment as in vulnerability to deception.

Now, sure I understand you're at least in part trying to inject some "balance" into how candidates are weighed. I think a good chunk of voters use common sense in this regard.

Voter discernment includes MANY issues...namely,
voting record,
present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements,
social issues' stances,
character,
viability,
scandal-free past, etc.

What I object to is FReepers who think they're acting in a "free way" by trying to stigmatize voters who don't 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates. (That seems to be exactly the opposite of a "Free Republic" in which we live).

Now I don't know if you would go so far as this Lds "apostle" (Dallin Oaks), who said the following in his "Religious Freedom" speech he made a number of weeks ago:

From the news release about his speech: ...of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose...But...If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation...

"Weigh all their ways," Mr. Oaks seems to say, but don't advocate that candidates steer clear of anything religiously objectionable, which I might add, could potentially include...
...Satanism,
...religious terrorism,
...or candidates who embrace obtaining a graduate degree in divinity -- as in becoming a god himself!!!
I'm sorry, but just because I might claim to worship tulips in my backyard while running for office -- and it doesn't sit well with my voting neighbor who sees such worship -- doesn't "weaken" "the precious free exercise of religion...at its foundation" when that neighbor elects to vote against me primarily on that basis. In fact, it strengthens it. Why? Because "the free exercise of religion" isn't a one-way street applicable only to candidates! (It also applies to voters!). And there's ALWAYS more voters than candidates!

IMPORT OF WEIGHING A CANDIDATE'S VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION: What exactly is wrong with the voter standard that I'm not going to vote for somebody -- ANYBODY -- Democrat, Republican, independent, Green, populist, etc. who thinks they are a god in embryo or part of the future gods of Kolob coalition? Believe me, if Hillary stood up in 2010, announced she was running for president based on her experience as a "god," I don't think we'd see standing ovations from the Democrats based upon some wrestled-out-of-context "freedom of religious expression" notion.

My concern was why did that Lds "apostle" come and wag a finger at voters, saying, "Hey, you, yeah, you, Mr. or Mrs. Individual Voter...if you dare consider the Hare Krishna aspect of this candidate...the Moonie ties of this candidate...the Satanic ties of this candidate...the Wiccan beliefs & practices of this candidate...then we'll accuse you of weakening the very foundation of the constitution??? In other words, 'Vote for the Hare Krishna dude or else!!!' By this standard, we couldn't even take into consideration a candidate's expectation of 72 virgins awaiting them post-'martyrdom' death as a glimpse of their broader religious perspectives.

While Oaks was claiming that "The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign," numerous reasons exist as to why the religious beliefs of a candidate ARE relevant. We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum.

If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist!

Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist. To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).

The above-mentioned 2006 Rasmussen poll can be found Election2008:43%WouldNeverVoteforMormonCandidate.

Excerpt from that thread: The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.

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.