Posted on 07/08/2011 11:59:15 AM PDT by delacoert
(WNS)--Mitt Romney and every American is free to believe whatever he wants, and religious belief – whether benign or bizarre -- should not prevent anyone from running for public office.
But that doesn’t mean voters shouldn’t take a candidate’s religious views into account. Indeed, a person’s religious beliefs tell us a great deal about both a candidate’s character and the core principles that inform his governing philosophy. When we evaluate candidates for public office, religion matters – and should.
As for Romney, I start with the understanding that Mormonism is not orthodox, biblical Christianity. If this understanding is true, then the promotion of Mormonism would be to promote a false religion. So the real question is whether supporting a Mormon for president would promote Mormonism. My answer to that is “yes.” It is inconceivable to me that electing a Mormon to the world’s most powerful political office would not dramatically raise the profile and positive perception of Mormonism. That is why I cannot in good conscience vote for Romney, despite agreeing with him on a good many social and fiscal issues.
Some argue that we elect a president, not a preacher, but this argument fails to account the presidency as “bully pulpit.” He is a preacher, apologist-in-chief for the American Vision. In this vital role, worldview matters. We have a right to expect the president to project a vision consistent with the beliefs, values, and ideals we’ve long held as a country.
I sometimes hear the related argument that we don’t ask an airplane pilot his religion, only that he can fly the plane. However, we do ask airplane pilots their religion -- at least indirectly. A theologian friend is fond of saying, “There are no postmodern airplane pilots.” He means that pilots do not merely push levers and twist knobs. They have a core set of beliefs and values about how the universe operates. They believe in the physical laws of the universe. Their behavior in the cockpit directly connects to their beliefs about the world.
Romney’s strategy has been to talk about “values” and dodge questions about religion, as if they were somehow unrelated. He hopes that as America accepted John Kennedy’s Catholicism, so too will America accept his Mormonism. But Kennedy gave a famous speech to the Houston Baptists about religion that explained his views and calmed concerns. Romney’s problem is that if he really believes what the Mormon Church believes, he dares not make that speech. The American people will say, “Really? Are you kidding me?” Or, if he says he doesn’t believe what the Mormon Church teaches, fellow Mormons will feel betrayed and even those who have trouble with the Mormon Church will nonetheless wonder about a man who can’t stand up for his own.
Yogi Berra famously said that “predictions are dangerous, especially predictions about the future.” That said, my prediction is that for Romney these problems are insurmountable and will ultimately bring down his bid for the presidency.
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
Hey GOD!
How's it look; from under the BUS??
I may agree with some of your post; but the strawman at the end of it is weak.
It seems the writer wouldn’t have a problem with Romney ...
It seems the writer DOES have a problem with Romney on ALL of the OTHER issues.
How ELSE could you read it?
THEY know that!
It’s called “Muddying the Waters”
;0)
“There are some exit polling that show a 64% support for Reid.”
Where did you find that? Not saying it is wrong or anything, just that my google skills are pretty lacking.
Freegards
|
Office of First President & Living Prophet®: July 10th, 2011 The strategy for the next 3 months is -
|
I read that in a Nevada newspaper right after the election. Later this afternoon I’ll look for that article and send you the link.
How many times do we have to explain this?
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: People continue to 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.
Summary: The ironic thing is -- that if the Constitution was twisted the way you and others twist it -- that it was something forced upon the voting patterns of this nation...
...then voting would become something akin to hiring sexual minorities or minorities...
...if you as a voter had a choice 'tween hiring a minority religion candidate or a majority one, you'd HAVE to vote for the minority religion candidate!
Or if you as a voter had a choice 'tween hiring an atheistic candidate or a theistic one, you'd HAVE to vote for the atheistic candidate!
Otherwise, according to you, the voter would be "guilty" of exercising their free liberty...and per you, that's supposedly a "constitutional violation!"
You left out the word “despite”. As in not voting for him DESPITE agreeing with him an a good many social and fiscal issues. You are not going to find one real conservative on FR who would say something like that. And If you think that means he DOES have a problem “with ALL the other issues”, as in there are many more issues he disagrees with Romney about, well OK. Here’s the full paragraph:
“As for Romney, I start with the understanding that Mormonism is not orthodox, biblical Christianity. If this understanding is true, then the promotion of Mormonism would be to promote a false religion. So the real question is whether supporting a Mormon for president would promote Mormonism. My answer to that is “yes.” It is inconceivable to me that electing a Mormon to the world’s most powerful political office would not dramatically raise the profile and positive perception of Mormonism. That is why I cannot in good conscience vote for Romney, despite agreeing with him on a good many social and fiscal issues.”
Freegards
“Statistically this perception is not supported”
Oh?
A 1993 study published in Demography [magazine] showed that Mormons marrying within their church are least likely of all Americans to become divorced. Only 13 percent of LDS couples have divorced after five years of marriage, compared with 20 percent for religiously homogamist unions among Catholics and Protestants and 27 percent among Jews. However, when a Mormon marries outside his or her denomination, the divorce rate soars to 40 percent — second only to mixed-faith marriages involving a Jewish spouse (42 percent).”
QUOTE FROM LINK: Overall, the Mormon divorce rate appears to be no different from the average American divorce rate. A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce — a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans. 5 Members of non-denominational churches (typically Fundamentalist in teaching) and born-again Christians experience a significantly higher divorce rate; Agnostics and Atheists have much a lower rate.
LINK: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm
Depression in Utah: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/eveningnews/main510918.shtml
Again statistics do not match perception.
Maybe a True Scotsman would.
After re-reading it; you are right.
He WON'T vote for Romney ONLY because he is a MORMON.
But his vote will be balanced by those who WILL vote for him because he's a MORMON.
A lot happened in 6 years!
Statisticians do not have their own newspaper and TV station.
I had no idea the mormon church was so liberal. I always thought they were conservative.
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.