Posted on 02/14/2008 4:34:07 AM PST by Kaslin
Now that Mitt Romney is out of the presidential race, it’s the perfect time to discuss what we should have learned from all the chatter about his faith. The questions and answers relating to faith and holding public office are far more important than one candidate.
If you ask almost any American where the Constitution provides for religious liberty, what are you likely to hear? The First Amendment. There, in words many of us know by heart, we read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
But there’s another important reference to religion in our Constitution. Considering the vitriolic manner in which our modern media culture treats faith in general, though, if you haven’t read the Constitution yourself, you probably don’t even know it’s there.
Article 6, Clause 3 states: “… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” That phrase, and the troubled intersection of private faith and public office, is the subject of a fascinating new documentary titled “Article VI.”
Independent filmmakers Bryan Hall and Jack Donaldson explore the current debate over the issue and remind us that ignorance on the subject is nothing new. They show how during John F. Kennedy’s campaign for the presidency in 1960, Kennedy had to go to great lengths to assure non-Catholic Americans that he wouldn’t be a tool of the Vatican -- that the Catholic Church wouldn’t be dictating policy decisions if he were elected. Addressing the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Kennedy said: “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate, who happens to be a Catholic.”
Fast forward 48 years, and it seems remarkable that Kennedy’s faith was an issue. With Catholics serving alongside Protestants and the adherents of other faiths (and no faith) for years, the furor almost appears quaint. You would think the “faith” issue was settled once and for all. But as Hall and Donaldson reveal, when they interviewed people across the country from many walks of life, the way people reacted when Romney, a Mormon, was running for president sounded eerily familiar.
Like Kennedy, Romney had to tell voters repeatedly why his faith didn’t disqualify him for the Oval Office. Are we really still asking such questions in America?
Part of what makes “Article VI” such a compelling film is that Hall and Donaldson give us historical context. They remind us, for example, that there’s a shameful tradition of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. When Al Smith ran for president against Herbert Hoover in 1928, he was pilloried for his Catholic faith. It was denounced as anti-democratic, monarchical -- not in tune with American institutions. And there’s also an appalling tradition of prejudice against those of the Jewish faith who seek high office. Remember the horrible questions the press asked of Sen. Joseph Lieberman when he ran for president? Some things never change. For many in the media, it seems, Mormonism is the new anti-semitism.
Of course, every voter should feel free to NOT vote for a candidate based on any reason -- their politics, their ideology, their position on this issue or that ... even their faith. But if a potential candidate is loyal to America, to say that he is unfit to run for office or unfit to govern because of his faith is just plain wrong -- and the Constitution makes that perfectly clear.
Al Smith lost, of course, and by 1960, such sentiments seemed to be changing. But the media just loves to beat people up over faith. The American public, however, does intuitively seem to understand (although we can often get confused by the headlines). As talk-show host Hugh Hewitt says in “Article VI,” 95 percent of the electorate just wants to know whether someone is a good person, not what his theology is. Otherwise, Hewitt notes, we wouldn’t have elected Abraham Lincoln, who “wasn’t remotely an orthodox Christian.” Lincoln read the King James Bible and spoke openly of God, but he belonged to no specific domination.
In “Article VI,” we hear from Jews, Hindus and Muslims who express their love for this country. We also hear from David French, a constitutional lawyer who advocates Christian rights. As a Christian, he says, he doesn’t believe Muslims and Christians worship the same God, “because the Allah of the Koran bears zero resemblance to the God of the Bible. But there’s a First Amendment in this country. People of all faiths are equal citizens of this republic.”
Whether it’s Mitt Romney speaking boldly of his Mormon faith, Mike Huckabee as an ordained Baptist minister, or Barack Obama taking the pulpit in churches across the country, the personal practice of deep faith by our would-be leaders must be passionately protected. As Kennedy told the Houston ministers: “Today, I may be the victim. But tomorrow, it may be you.”
By the way, The Heritage Foundation will send you a free pocket copy of the Constitution so that you’ll always be armed with the truth about your freedoms. Heritage will even pay the postage -- just visit heritage.org for your free copy.
>>When you stop lying I will start growing up.<<
That is what we call a “big fat claim”. Please cut and paste one of my lies in your reply to this.
I think several things would have become public knowledge, but the one thing that would likely have been most noted would have been the practice of the LDS church not allowing attendance at temple weddings by friends and relatives, even parents, unless they paid the price for the "temple recommend" by being "worthy". Imagine, forbidding parents to attend the wedding of a child.
Thanks for that link.
My daughter came back from college and told me about it (I haven’t had TV since 1997). I got the episode off limewire and, other than my initial shock over the vulgarity of the show, was amazed how frank they were in dealing with such a “non-pc” topic. I wonder if they have done this with Islam yet...
Sorry, didn't have time to read your post.
I was too busy looking for the Biblical verse that authorizes an infallible deified Roman Catholic Pope?
After that, will look for the Biblical verse which validates Purgatory? And who is supposed to go there?
Which book in the New Testament speaks of Rosary Beads?
Where in the New or Old Testament does it say to pray or worship St. Mary?
How did the Hail Mary repeated prayers come to mean anything?
Which Bible verse explains the process of being Cannonized? How many Saints are too many Saints? And which Bible verse sets the rules for becoming a Saint?
Which Saint helps us find lost items? Saints for animals?
What about statues of St. Mary? Doesn't the Bible strictly forbid statues?
Where in the Bible does it explain Holy Water? Celibate Priests? Confession Booths?
Eating fish on Friday?
I could go on. But if you're looking for human "traditions" as some sort of reason to disallow Mormonism as a valid religion, I suggest you look no further than some of the other so=called mainstream religions.
I am sure most people think of the above things as "ordained" by the Almighty.
Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are not.
But what gives anyone the right to proclaim THEIR human traditions more valid than anyone elses.... outside of that outlined in the Holy Scriptures.
Exactly. I don't mind in the least that Huckabee is a proud Baptist.
So am I.
But when he runs as a Christian FIRST, to the exclusion and criticism of other faiths, I say the man is not qualified to be President, not in a country that cherishes freedom of worship.
I was willing to give Huckabee a pass, actually, until he made that assinine comment to the NYTimes writer, "Dont Mormons believe that the Devil is Jesus' brother??"
Followed by Huckabee's comment on wanting to change the US Constitution to fit God;s Word -- as he interprets it, of course. .
At that point, Huckabee turned into an icon OPPOSED to what America was founded on -- Freedom of religion.
Never Huckabee. (and I am a practicing Baptist who was raised in church, three times a week, summer Christian camp, and a home where traveling ministers such as Billy Graham and Jack Van Impe occasionally came to visit.
When Romney dropped out two days after the Feb. 5 super primary, he had 4.1 million votes compared to McCain's 4.7 million votes.
No candidate was perfect.
Romney certianly unified the Republican party better than any candidate you might have supported.
I am still waiting for the Romney haters to come up with someone THEY think can win.
Surely you jest.
Fred, despite my affection and respect, couldn't campaign his way out of a paper bag.
H
I’m sure that conservatives will come up with someone in ‘08 or ‘12. If not, the conservative movement is in even deeper trouble.
Judge the life, not the faith.
Papal infallibility refers only to the truths of religion, declared in consonance with 2000 years of tradition. Canon law (Church law) refers to the duties of Catholics within the Church and is not a legal system for a society.
The Pope is not an earthly governor and the Catholic Church actually adapts to just about any system of governance that allows it to exist.
Mormonism and Islam were conceived as all-encompassing systems where the religious authorities would also be the civil governors, and where the religious (including ritual) law would be the law of the civil society. In fact, civil society doesn’t really exist in either Mormonism or Islam.
The difference is that many Mormons are reexamining this, whereas Muslims are not. A big part of the difference is that Mormonism is a combination of fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, somebody’s personal visions, and 19th century spiritualism, while Islam is a combination of Old Testament law, pagan practices and dieties, and a few figures from Christianity. Mormonism has largely abandoned theocracy, while Islam has not.
In the case of Romney, I didn’t like him because I thought he was a liberal. He was probably much more socially liberal than many Mormons, in fact.
As for Momonism in general, I know many Mormons want to be accepted as orthodox Christians, but it is up to them and their leaders to formulate this and work it out.
Mormon practices are very strange. I think that’s something Mormons have got to work out for themselves. But in terms of Romney - who I suspect was probably not a great Mormon in recent years, although he was apparently a Mormon bishop - I think it was reasonable to ask him about these things, and his screaming “prejudice” was not an okay answer.
Whaaaa##???
And you think the Roman Catholic church was NOT an all encompassing system when it was created, with the power to behead, the power to annoint Kings and Queens of various European countries??
The CAtholic Church had Galileo put in prison for having the audacity to invent a telescope and talk about the planets revolving around the sun instead of the Catholic Church's insistance it was the other way around.
Read up on the history of the Catholic Church and you, I believe, will be stunned.
My point being the hypocricy of all those who so despise the Mormon religion's doctrine for "non Biblical" teachings when in fact many Christian denonimations do the EXACT same thing.
And I'm a believing practicing Christian who loves the Catholic Church, and occasionally attends Mass.
No, it's up to falsely pious people to stop pretending that THEY are the almighty arbitor of truth with the ability to interpret all things.
Mormon's have their absolutes and traditions founded in their history which are NOWHERE to be found in the standard King James Bible, and Roman Catholics have absolutes and traditions which are NOWHERE to be found in the standard King James Bible.
Please explain Pergutory, worshiping St. Mary, absolution, confession booths, eating fish on Friday, saying prayers to "Saints" who then intercede with God Almighty to help in various earthly chores, etc etc.
To someone familiar with denominations of American Christianity, those things seem just as "out there" as many Mormon teachings.
I am not judging either denomination. Just making a point that people should stop acting as if THEY are God's interpreter.
Mormons are just as patriotic, just as upstanding people, perhaps more so, than so called "regular" Christians.
The thing that so irks me is that Romney supporters, like myself, were more-than-happy to support any OTHER candidate who might have won the nomination.
I would be happy as a clam to support Duncan, or Fred, and I will probably close my eyes and vote for McCain.
But the hate which dripped off the postings of Romney haters has opened my eyes to that intolerant spiteful segment of the conservative movement which I thought had been purged decades ago.
Seems I was wrong.
Because just like many people claim they don't "believe" Romney is a conservative .... and then insist it has nothing to do with Mormon ....
Well, then likewise I can "believe" they are just pretending that they don't believe Romney a real conservative --- but simply hate the fact he is a Mormon.
Look at all the thousands of postings on FR that go on and on and on about some aspect of Mormon, when in reality the Mormon church has nothing do with with anything.
It’s the combination that will always make Romney a divider of the Republican party. Combine Mormon, which alienates a chunk of the Christian vote, with $50 copays for abortions and appointment of gay activists as judges, which alienates all social conservatives, with coercive and universal healthcare, which alienates intellectually honest and well grounded economic conservatives, and you’re left with Romney, who has enough millions of his own and enough millions from his Mormon constituency to pretend to be in the race, but without any natural constituency or base outside of the Mormon community.
It's mind-boggling that Huckabee's single comment, "Don't mormons believe satan is Jesus' brother" is claimed to be the arrow that slew the Romney candidacy.
What do the Romney supporters believe the Hillary campaign would have done, had Mitt become the nominee? They have already turned the democrat campaign racial, and for some reason you Mitt supporters don't believe that they would have used SEVERAL mormon practices against him, especially the fact that blacks were banned from receiving the mormon priesthood until 1978.
All the "crying victim" in the world wouldn't have done Mitt any good in the general election.
>>But we can’t indulge in judging people by their faith.<<
I disagree. Would you vote for a Muslim presidential candidate?
In a time of warfare against Muslim extremists? No. That would have to be one extraordinary individual.
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.