Why a candidate’s faith matters

THe Washington Post ^ | October 18, 2011 | Robert Jeffress

[wmfights]

Hearing Mitt Romney’s surrogate Bill Bennett refer to me as a bigot and Jon Huntsman call me a “moron” last week after my controversial comments on Mormonism, amid calls for civility and tolerance in public discourse, reminds me of the exclamation: “We will not tolerate intolerance!” But beyond the personal insults, I am concerned that these men are attempting to prematurely marginalize religion as a relevant topic in elections. Utilizing such incendiary rhetoric against those of us who dare bring up a candidate’s spiritual beliefs cuts off discussion about religion before it begins.

[Buggman]

Nothing you've said actually contradicts my scenario, nor have you established that either Elimelech or Ruth started out their sojourn by violating the laws of the country they immigrated to. Therefore, you haven't established an equivalency.

Now, you could make a case for a different equivalence: There are also millions of Mexicans who are in this country legally. It would therefore be wrong to create a situation in which they would suffer discrimination because of the illegal border-crossing of others, just as it would have been wrong to discriminate against Ruth in the gleaning because she happened to come from Moab.

A good example would be a friend of mine from Peru who earned his citizenship, but still has to provide his documentation everywhere he goes.

Again, I'm not siding with Uriel--I'm saying that anyone who thinks this is a black-and-white Biblical issue is being overly simplistic.

Shalom

[xzins]

But the openness is the point, Buggman.

On the one hand, we have a culture that readily accepts these refugees from hard times, and on the other hand, we have a culture that doesn’t.

The odds are high that a foreigner married overseas to an American who afterwards died overseas will not be able to get into the US at all. Yet Ruth easily entered Israel and even claimed access to some marriage rights based on the laws of the land she had entered.

Now, the Levitical rule was to treat sojourners as “native born.” One has to wonder how easy it is to justify a human law that countermands that recommendation.

[Buggman]

*sigh* So what this really comes down to is that I can see both sides of this issue, while you, Marlowe, and Uriel can't. Got it.

You know, it gets really frustrating talking to brethren who are so micro-focused on just one line of Scripture that they're convinced proves their absolute rightness that they'll ignore anything else. And that goes for all three of you.

I'm walking away now. You can have the final say if you want it.

Shalom

[xzins]

I don’t think I’ve been arguing for seeing things only one way.

I’ve been arguing on behalf of Moab that they appear to be, in the timeframe of Ruth, anyway, a more friendly place than is the US of A is in the 21st century, especially toward our Mexican neighbors.

The gnashing of teeth over Perry’s tuition aid to children of illegals, here through no fault of their own and with no other country than this, demonstrates the comparison I’m making.