Posted on 11/22/2006 10:11:01 AM PST by Deut28
The Christianist Candidate
In case you were unaware, it's Mitt Romney. As with most Christianists, the idea of allowing different states to try different solutions to the same problem is dispensable when moral absolutes are involved. In other words, the fundamentalists have no interest in federalism. If federalism means that California can have marriage equality and medical marijuana, today's GOP base wants none of it. Here's Romney's discussion of John McCain's approach:
Romney was less charitable to McCain, who on Sunday told ABC News: 'I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states.' McCain also said, 'I believe that gay marriage should not be legal.' Romney seized on the remarks. 'That's his position, and in my opinion, it's disingenuous,' he said. 'Look, if somebody says they're in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same–sex marriage, I respect that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be disingenuous.'
It's now disingenuous to have a position on a matter but believe it should be decided by indidividual states rather than by federal control? Disingenuous? Of course, Romney knows better. He's smart, he's aware of the important principle of federalism - but he's going for the Christianist wing, the wing that only supports states' rights when states support Christianist policy prescriptions. And so another conservative principle gets inverted by the allegedly "conservative" candidate.
Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Your definition of a Christian is?
Awwww...dang...thanks for the image....ewwwww
Apparently, part of the issue here is that LDS theology is very different from Catholic/Protestant theology, particularly in the matter of who Jesus is.
Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior is a Christian. That is the dictionary defintion and we Mormons certainly qualify. We do not subscribe to some aspects of orthodox Christianity, but that just makes us unorthodox, not non-christian.
Right now the benefit to our side is that we are conserving the definition once the Court rules we will then be no conserving but reacting. Conserving/conservative has more appeal than reacting/reactionary, at least most of the time.
And frankly if Vermont wants gay marriage and Oklahoma doesn't and I really thought there was a way to sustain that, it would be fine with me. I really don't care what people in Vermont do.
A label does not always accurately reflect the contents.
I did not opine about the eternal fate of LDS members. I merely said that in my opinion the differences between what LDS members believe and the historic Christian faith are so great that it makes sense to classify them as separate and distinct religions.</p>
Sorry. . . . . . . . I guess it wasn't very ladylike.
That is superficially true, but breaks down when we observe that the LDS notion of God's nature is different from the Christian notion of God's nature.
Specifically: the LDS notion that God the Father is a deified man flatly contradicts the Christian notion of God the Father.
That is the dictionary defintion and we Mormons certainly qualify.
The dictionary definition of "Christian" is actually considerably vaguer than the definition you've provided.
We do not subscribe to some aspects of orthodox Christianity
That is putting it mildly, but accurately.
but that just makes us unorthodox, not non-christian
The canonical definition of Christianity is a person who believes that God is a consubstantial, coeternal, immuted and immutable spiritual Trinity, the second Person of which entered into an hypostatic union with Jesus of Nazareth.
An LDS believer maintains that the Trinity is a mixed entity and that the persons of the Trinity are not coeternal, not consubstantial and not immuted.
It's a point of view, but it is not a point of view compatible with canonical Christianity.
Don't get me wrong - I find the modern LDS to be quite an admirable institution and I would never vote against any individual for being a member of the LDS. To the contrary, I would consider it a recommendation given the high level of integrity I've personally experienced in dealing with LDS believers.
But there is an objective standard of what constitutes Christian belief, and it is not found in the LDS.
McCain has supported Gay marriage, period. Stating that it should be a states rights issue is only a way to provide cover for his stance. Abortion is a states rights issue, marriage is not, for the simple reason that marriage involves federal tax issues and movement of people across state lines.
Sullivan is an idiot, and McCain is obfuscating on this issue.
To paraphrase him:
"Look how close you can be and still have it make all the difference. Consider the gays. They are only about an inch and a half off the mark, but look at all the difference it makes."
It depends on what your definition of 'Accepting Jesus as...Savior' is.
That's where most non-LDS folks, including myself, get tripped up. Your definition of grace seems to be a bit...difficult. And in the eyes of most Protestants and Catholics, that's absolutely key to recieving salvation, the realization that it cannot be earned, and is not tied to anything we do beyond acceptance of our own inadequacy.
Feel free to explain how I'm wrong if you want. I'm not an ignoramous on the subject, I've read a few books and articles on Mormonism. The one that informed me the most was 'A Different Jesus?' by Robert L. Millit, who is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. He convinced me that much of the anti-Mormon hysteria is untrue, he also convinced me that we have much, much more in common then not.
He failed to convince me, however, that the Mormon definition of grace wasn't ultimately substantially different from the concept that Protestands and Catholics give it, and I have a lot of difficulty with that one, because I believe it is key to accepting salvation.
That said, as I've said in this thread, I'd rather leave that up to God. I'm making no judgements myself, I'm just explaining the difficulty as I see it and what I think is the root cause of the conflict.
Now you're being disingenuous or perhaps...
You Can't Handle The Truth!
Has anybody ever told you that just because you say something, it doesn't make it so?
I learned that when I was 4.
You should learn it too. Either back something up with some facts or logic, or shut up.
I mean, good grief, Jerry Falwell of all people said he finds McCain's stance on Gay Marrage acceptable. You don't even have the fringe on your side on this issue.
Pray tell, how do you 'know' what the court will decide?
why even give them an opportunity to screw it up
romney threads in the last week have deteriorated into battles in which some freepers say they will never vote for romney because he isn't a Christian, and that the country will never vote for a mormon, and discussion of details of LDS, etc, etc, etc. They must be away from their computers now. I am glad he seems to have a good moral back ground. I like Mormans. I am pro Romney. I think he has the best chance at this point.
Because it should be a states issue, and I see no reason to make it a federal issue if it can be handled at a state level.
If it can't, fine, but it probably can. I think we have at least 5 votes against gay marriage on the SC.
If the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that all states must recognize gay marriage, do you think Andrew Sullivan would be upset?
Me neither.
He's in favor of federalism when it suits him, not otherwise. But see, that's better than "Christianists" having the same attitude, because, uh, they're meanies.
Muslims are monotheists, unlike Mormons.
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.