Why This Evangelical Can't Vote for Mitt Romney

(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.

No, kiddo you said in 2011 the battle is between those who respect religion and those who want to destroy all religious values. The 1500s have nothing to do with this. I am not sure that you get it's 2011 and not 1500.

This is what I wrote:

===========================

Back in the 1600's, the battle used to be between Our Religion vs. The Other Guy's Religion.

In 2011, the battle is between those who respect religion and those who want to destroy all religious values.

12 posted on Friday, July 08, 2011 12:36:16 PM by Polybius

===========================

Is English your fourth language?

Do you have the slightest clue that my point is that religious bigotry belongs in the past centuries and not in 21st Century America?

Do you have the slightest clue that my point is that religious people should be worried about the secularist that attack all religions and should not be looking for unnecessary fights with other religious people?

This kind of fearmongering based on one's private religious views has no place in American politics

ALL: One wishes when MissesBush shares her religious convictions, that they might remain "private" as well. But of course, she's one of the most two-faced posters on FR.

When she tries to defend Romney's religious convictions, she references them as "private." But when she speaks out on her own religious convictions, those, of course, go "public."

So she stretches "religious views" whichever way the gumby goes; if it's better to publicly vocal about them, she's a one-way outbound street. If she's trying to impress y'all about how somebody's religious beliefs are being picked on, she claims this 52,000-missionary religion Lives on "Private" Boulevard.

Beware of posters with two faces.

The way I interpret Matthew 22:21 is .... When you are electing a Pastor or a Pope, pay attention to his religious beliefs.When you are electing a secular leader of a Secular State, pay attention to his secular political positions.

I've dealt with this Q numerous times on FR (mostly latter part of '07 when Romneybots were everywhere on FR).

Here's how I would frame it: Question A at hand: Are we voting for a 'pastor-in-chief' or commander-in-chief?
Principle (a): This question addresses not only the role and identity of the POTUS, but the perceived 'self' identity of the candidate. If a given candidate thinks he's a 'god' or 'would-be' god, he exposes himself as deceived on one of the most basic elemental identity issues you can think of.

If a candidate doesn't even know who he is fundamentally, and inwardly lauds himself as 'divine,' why would we want to reinforce such an idolater who steals glory from the One True God?

Principle B also deals with Question A, but from a distinct angle: Is a POTUS a 'minister' of sorts?

Apparently, Polybius might say 'no.'

I say 'yes,' and here's why:

Even non-religious people tend to at times honor the Bible. The Biblical record shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the TRUE Lord -- not by some low-level Mormon god who is part of a great number of Mormon gods...

And these Biblical leaders did not -- or were not to -- worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture.

It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader adheres to, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.

Wow! (And hear I was under the mistaken notion as a Christian that we were to take our cultural cues from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ? And now Polybius comes along & imposes something in direct contradiction!)

Boy. Tough choice: Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or Polybius?

Here's Jesus:

"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)

So does Jesus say, "worry about the secularists that can attack all religions?" (No)
Does Jesus say -- as other FR posters have hinted -- that we are to "fear the enemies of our freedom loving republic within our borders?" (No)
Or as many other FR posters usually point out, does Jesus say to fear the jihadists (Again, No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.

The way apparently some would have it, is to call for some "kumbayah" peace treaty & unite all religions vs. the secularists.

But you know, I could probably guess that the folks who the apostle Paul warned the church @ Ephesus about had the bulk in common with the sheep there. Both groups were "religious." So, did Paul play the "allies"-game-don't-divide-us-some posters play? (No)

As Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:

"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)

Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)

Tell me something, Polybius: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"

[Oh, & btw...SOME conservatives are able to multi-task & address both secularists as well as cultists...I thank God some of the posters we've seen who can only oppose one-directionally weren't part of our military leadership during WWII...they would have never known how to address both Japan & Germany simultaneously on multiple frontlines!]

I will be voting Thrid Party if Romney is nominated. For too long both Parties have stayed in power by using the lesser of two evils argument, or the Third Party can’t win, etc. Quite frankly, I don’t care. I refuse to be a useful idiot for these people anymore. If Romney is nominated, I will not vote for him for President. It will be Third Party for me and I don’t care if I am the lone vote that sends Obama back to the WH.

Bingo. (Me, too)

I refuse to make true conservatism obsolete by deep-sixing the GOP party with a vote for Romney.

The RINOs will conclude that they never have to field a conservative candidate again. They'll claim that the social-issue conservatives have no place to go.

They'll kill conservatism forever 'cause the base will leave -- and half or more will never come back. You can't go to bed with a RINO & expect the faithful to tolerate that.

What will happen is this:
1. The press will either ignore or downplay the details of Mormonism until Romney gets the nomination.
2. The press will shine a bright spotlight on the bizarre nature of Mormonism once Romney gets the nomination.
The press wants McCain 2.0, and Mormonism is part of that.
The plan is to lure the stupid Republican primary voters into accepting McCain 2.0, and then lambasting Mc2.0 once he’s nominated. [samtheman, post #30]

These Kumbaya FReepers that want Romney as the nominee might as well just stay home. Once the media starts pounding on the racist mormon beliefs of the past, it will be all over. [Greyfoxx39, post #40]

We've been saying this over & over again for the last 4 years til we're hoarse in our keyboard mouths.

The MSM is no fool. They won't even need to drive a wedge (the wedges are already there):
The Mormons have been attacking mainstream Christianity as "apostates" for 180 years!
For almost 180 years, they've been labeling our creeds worldwide as an "abomination."
And they think this will somehow "inspire" Christians to vote for Romney?

They will pull out the full barrage of the Mormon positions on race when Mitt was in his 20s into age 30. He doesn't stand a chance.

My only problem with Romney’s mormonism is that he doesn’t follow it. He is pro-gay and pro-choice. I’m betting mormonism isn’t. Don’t know that for a fact, but I think it’s a safe bet. [xzins]

Uhhhh, while I'm not a Romney fan I am a Mormon and there is NOTHING different about a Mormon's view of the country, it's values and ideals that wouldn't be held by any other Christian. [MissesBush, post #28]

Actually, Xzins...Mitt Romney acts just like the wishy-washy weaving of Mormon leaders of foregone years.

What threads like these show all those FREEPERS who keep saying how "aligned" we are with Mormons re: "common values" is that the Mormon church can be liberal when it wants to...and it's been awfully convenient for that to happen more and more the last few years.

Examples:

* Homosexual rights: Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights and Mormons Back Salt Lake City Gay Rights Laws

Illegal Immigration liberal policy nuances... note these headlines & stories: Considering The Disconnect Between Some LDS Church Members and Leadership on Immigration

Abortion: The official Mormon church position (see
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_abor.htm) is that it's "OK" for an abortion if...
(a) Incest needs to be covered up;
(b) The baby is disabled and needs to be destroyed accordingly
(c) Mom's "health" (whatever that means...distinct from saying "life" of the mother)
(d) If the abortionist says it's "OK"
(e) If the Mormon god says it's "OK" in prayer...

E alone above could "justify" abortion to individual Mormons as long it overrides the person's conscience!

And if you need further evidence of just how liberal the Mormon church leadership can be when it wants to be, then look at how Harry Reid was welcomed with such warm open arms by an all BYU student & faculty occasion for Reid to speak there: Reid gets warm reception at BYU

Too many of you FREEPERS somehow think that Romney's wishy-washiness is "unconnected" to his faith. Well, the Mormon leadership has shown it can be morally wishy-washy whenever it's "convenient."

It was "convenient" for the Mormon church leadership to pass homosexual rights for Salt Lake City 'cause they were coming off of what the MSM regarded "negative" media play re: Prop 8 in CA.

It was "convenient" for their missionary program to support aspects of immigrants being here illegally.

And, at times, it's been "convenient" for daughters of Mormon leaders and others to get abortions.

Certainly, it's been "convenient" for them to have a Harry Reid in Congress "watch out" for Mormon church interests.

Historically, it was "convenient" for the Mormon god to change his mind about skin color...even if he didn't change Mormon racist "sacred book" passages depicting open racism. And it was "convenient" for the Mormon church to slowly rid itself of open polygamy because their church was threatened, their menfolk were in jail, and they wanted statehood. Even then, it was "convenient" for their original leader, Joseph Smith, to engage in sex with many women even though his own penned Book of Mormon called polygamy an "abomination."

Since children are generally brought up in the religious connections or lack thereof of their parents, what a person's religious background is not a satisfactory litmus test for political office.

Well, it's certainly not the only thing we are to measure. I've advocated that it's but 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.

But I vehemently disagree the way you've dumped this into the category of only blaming Mitt's parents & grandparents & great-grandparents. At some point, adults assume responsibilities for their own worldviews -- including other-worldly worldviews...ESPECIALLY when they are giving 10% of their MILLIONS to inject it into cultures all over the world!

And, since we are talking about Mitt Romney (as well as Huntsman), may I reinforce Mitt's "True-believing" Mormon status:

I recommend this interview with author Tricia Erickson to all: Tricia Erickson: 'An indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President'

Erickson mentions that: Mitt…held…offices of…Missionary, Missionary Zone Leader, assistant to…Mission President…,…Bishop and Stake President…You cannot attain the “calling”…to serve as Mormon Bishop or Stake President unless you are a thoroughly entrenched and obedient Mormon…

Erickson's book now out is entitled: "Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church Versus The Office Of The Presidency of the United States of America."

I can see considering someone’s religion as a part of one’s selective parameters, but they would have to be pretty darn close to other attractive candidates for that to start to matter for me. So far any of the LDS presidential canidates haven’t been close enough for religion to come into play, at least for me.

Well, that's fine for you Ransomed. But you don't represent the majority of Americans.

If you click here: Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate (Rasmussen Poll)

Per excerpt found there: 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.

So…what % of the following groups found that a candidate’s faith and religious beliefs are an important consideration for voting?
(1) Americans: 62%
(2) Evangelical Christians: 92%
(3) Republicans: 78%
(4) Democrats: 55% [still a majority]

If they didn't think a candidate's other-worldly worldviews mattered, we wouldn't see these kind of numbers.

What I've seen over & over on FR, is that some posters may say,
"Yes, I can see how this can be part of parameters" --
or, "No, it's not part of my parameters"
or, "If it's part of your parameters, you're a bigot"
...and then they wind up superimposing/projecting their own opinions onto the majority of Americans!

To pgkdan:

So, no, pgkdan...62% of Americans & 78% of Republicans who deem a candidate's religion as either "very" or "somewhat" important are NOT bigots. YOU are the intolerant one of others who shows your disdain for the liberty of the American voter -- who btw on this matter -- constitute the majority -- to consider these things.

If you're so intolerant of others' religious views -- views that they've elected NOT to keep out of the voter booth -- why don't you start a new "Bigots Against Religious Freedom" (B.A.R.F.) club or something! You can preach all you want vs. voters who don't want to vote for a future self-proclaimed would-be god or something...

Sorry, but Jim Jones taught us that not all koolaid went down smoothly.

The invalid reason is that "Mormons believe that God was once a man, that we can all become gods, blah blah blah..." Anyone who thinks that a Mormon should not be president for that reason is in effect saying that belief in the Nicene Creed is a mandatory qualification for the Presidency, which is dangerous nonsense.

You think this is a mere doctrinal/historical creed issue?

If you've been led to believe this is as the en toto lowdown of how this fits, then some of us posters haven't been doing our jobs. Allow me to explain.

Question at hand: Is true faith and misdirected faith part of our character? And if yes, why wouldn't "character" ever NOT therefore be an issue upon which to seriously evaluate a candidate?
Principle that addresses this: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!

Notary Sojac, 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.

I mean, how can posters get around the realization that other-worldly commitments (faith) belong in the character issue category??? 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. (ANY of you posters: Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations!).

A POTUS goes beyond administrative duties. Discernment is a very important character trait...and that's not listed as a POTUS duty.

Examples then of how these other-worldly worldviews mixed with character issues @ the application level:
* How a Heaven's Gate follower adhered to the belief that extraterrestials would be visiting them is the issue (not only that he or she's a Heaven's Gate follower).
* Or how well a David Koresh follower stuck with him endurance-wise is the key issue--not the fact that they followed some specific Koresh teachings.
* Or how well a Jim Jones follower adhered to koolaid-drinking instructions is the key character issue, not the fact that they were in the jungle with Jones to begin with.

In the 1500’s the wars were between one religious denomination and another religious denomination and in the 21st Century the battles are between the secularists and the religions of all denominations.

That makes no sense to you?
______________________________________________

In a sense that you may not know your religious history, in a word

YES, it doesnt

1. The religious wars in Europe between the Catholic Church and the Reformers went far into the 17th Century

The 30 years war lasted from 1618 until 1648

The French and Indian Wars were fought partly because the French were Catholic and the (British-Americans) were mostly Protestant...way up to the American Revolution..

2. Mormonism is not a “denomination” of Christianity..It is a stand alone religion invented IN OPPOSITION TO Christianity...

3. I dont notice the Mormons battling the “secularists” very hard...

a. The Mormons are not exactly leaders in the fight against abortion

b. Williard Mitt Romney, Harry Reid

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.