2007
Yes, Romney’s a Mormon. What of it?
Allahpundit at HotAir has interesting poll results about how people respond to various types of candidates. Andrew Sullivan calls the heckler a Christianist, but also plays the bigotry card on Romney for not saying that a person professing any religion or none could be president. Since Sullivan is as good a Christian as he is a conservative, his opinion means a great deal to me and I’m completely gobsmacked about it. /sarc
Many people, like the one in the video, will refuse to vote for Romney in the primaries because he is a Mormon. That is their prerogative. I believe that Mormons are seriously misguided, and that their religion is false**. Having said that, it’s ridiculous to think that Romney’s faith or a candidate’s lack of faith is a bar to his being a good president. It’s true that people of faith are more comfortable with a candidate who professes the same beliefs we do. Need I say, duh? In the poll results at Hot Air, atheists are at the bottom of the list, which makes perfect sense. Most of the country professes some kind of faith. Do we want a leader who thinks we’re foolish for believing in God, or one that at least agrees with us on God’s existence but has a different doctrine? The former is considered arrogant, the latter is merely misguided. There’s a big difference. It’s unlikely a person out of the mainstream could get elected. But that’s not to say such a person, if elected, could not govern effectively as long as they respect our religious choices and act in accordance with our political principles.
At the bottom of this post is a list of Presidents from today down to 1901, along with their religion. Although these faiths fall under the general heading of Christianity, all of us likely have some complaint about the various doctrines. (Going further back, the deism of many of our founding fathers would be offensive to Christians today, which is why we don’t read the Jefferson Bible.) As you look at each name, consider their greatest failings and accomplishments, and consider whether their professed faith has any ramification on either.
How Romney worships is a great deal less important to his Presidential campaign than how we can reasonably expect him to behave once he’s in office. His history, positions, and goals are what is pertinent to this election, not what church he attends. If you’re going to reject Romney, do so because there is a better candidate, not a better Christian.
To the same conservative Christians who are prone to reject Romney now - what good did it do you that Bill Clinton is a Baptist?
George W. Bush - Methodist
Bill Clinton - Baptist
George H.W. Bush - Episcopalian
Ronald Reagan - Disciples of Christ
Jimmy Carter - Baptist
Gerald Ford - Episcopalian
Richard Nixon - Quaker
Lyndon Johnson - Disciples of Christ
John F. Kennedy - Catholic
Dwight Eisenhower - Protestant
Harry Truman - Baptist
Franklin Roosevelt - Episcopalian
Herbert Hoover - Quaker
Calvin Coolidge - Congregationalist
Warren Harding - Baptist
Woodrow Wilson - Presbyterian
William Howard Taft - Unitarian
Theodore Roosevelt - Episcopalian
**I believe that about any religion whose doctrine includes the concept that men may become gods. The fact that they believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, that Jesus married several women and had children, and in baptism of the dead is just gravy. All of that and more is according to Mormon authors whose books are sold in Mormon bookstores and are in good standing with their church. This site has even more. Bottom line - just because a religion’s doctrine includes references to Jesus doesn’t mean it’s the Christianity of the bible. [A preemptive shush: This topic is not up for debate on this site. Comments that try to explain why Mormonism is not false doctrine will be deleted because I'm not going to waste time answering them, and I'm not going to let them sit there unanswered. It's a safe bet Mormons think I'm dead wrong about my faith as well, and they're entitled to say so on their own websites. If you want to debate the issue, I recommend this message board where discourse is civil and the discussions are interesting.]
Trackbacks:
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Right Truth, Big Dog’s Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Diva Dish - Weekly Celebrity Gossip Round UP, Sujet- Celebrities, Rightlinx, third world county, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Right Nation, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, Maggie’s Notebook, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Random Dream, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Chaotic Synaptic Activity, Faultline USA, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Yeah, I agree that Mormons may be misguided (but then so may we all be in one form or another). But I think that your launching such a heavy-handed broadside criticism of Mormons and then refusing to allow any discussion or debate is theocratic. How can you want freedom of speech, expression, religion, etc. in your country but actively squelch it on your website? Isn’t that inconsistent?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Theocratic? As the expression goes, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Jprime, should I be able to plant any sign I want in your front yard? This is the electronic equivalent. Free speech means being able to say what you want, not to make other people listen, or make people repeat what you said. Hosting those views on a server that I own and maintain is the electronic equivalent of being made to repeat it. I choose not to spend my resources promoting a philosophy I believe is dangerously wrong. Any Mormon who wants to respond can do so, on a server I don’t own.
My server, my property, my decision what goes on it. I’m even selective about what clients I accept because I’m not going to promote any faith but my own.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
But that’s kinda my point. You want freedom of speech…except when it comes to your private property. In other words, when you have the power and money at your disposal (e.g. your website), you shut down debate on some subjects which you don’t support. So maybe you don’t really believe in free speech after all? It just comes across as kinda hypocritical. I think it’s why the left fears mixing religion and politics.
Note I’m *not* promoting Mormonism; I personally don’t believe in it.
My issue is: how can we guarantee our religious freedom as Christians if we start banning discussion of other faiths? How are we different than the Muslim fanatics if we refuse to even debate or comment on opposing views? The Truth only gets stronger when it has been challenged and put alongside a lie. God’s truth will win out. Or do we doubt it?
February 20th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Jprime, I don’t have the power or ability to ban discussion of other faiths. It’s going on all over, I’m just opting out. A debate like that, if it is to be Godly, respectful, and productive, takes time, prayer, and research. I don’t have the time or the good health to spend on that kind of thing right now, but I did link to a place where that kind of respectful debate is ongoing.
I understand your perspective about this but I can’t disagree more vehemently that this is *completely unlike* radical Islamists. They say “don’t talk at all” not “go talk elsewhere.”
The alternative to my preemptive shush is for me to have to pay for my “opponent” to promote their faith. That feels a great deal more like fascism to me than just directing people to a server where a debate or a response is welcomed.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:26 am
Very true! I did catch the link to the discussion board where people can debate. Well done! I apologize.
However, it remains that it is not correct when you say that “I don’t have the power or ability to ban discussion of other faiths.” You *do* have this power and ability…on your website. And I think its revealing that in the one place where actually do have the power and ability, you use to squelch debate.
The link to the bulletin board is heartening, I fully admit and praise.
But, the extrapolation is: if our leadership was like-minded, they would say “of course you’re free to be X (mormon, christian, jewish, black, ***, whatever…), but just not with *our* resources or in *our* country”. Which is what’s happened to Christians in the past.
As for expending your resoures and energy. The comments section already exists, so would it really cost you more than you already pay? As for energy, I believe you wouldn’t need to exert any in defense of mainline Christianity, *many* people would enter the debate who share your views. And through honest and open debate, the Truth would win out. You might even win some converts over time. If Christianity can’t survive debate, then maybe it’s not true, strong, or blessed by God….and you *know* that’s not the case. So why shut it off?
February 21st, 2007 at 11:05 am
I agree that I do have the power and ability to squelch debate on this website. You’re right, it wouldn’t cost me extra cash to allow comments to remain. It would cost me time to answer the comments. And not just the few minutes it takes me to answer yours - religious debate requires prayer, thought, care, and research unless you’re just willing to pop off with smartass and facile answers, which I’m not. This blog only gets about 150-200 visitors a day - and they’re not all “real” visitors as about a quarter of them came here looking for porn and immediately leave. Very few people comment. I wish they would. But in the absence of commenters to enter the debate, that would just leave the opposition view sitting there on my server unanswered. And that’s what I have a problem with.
I disagree with your correlation between what I’m doing and what the government might do. The government is a completely different entity than a private citizen. It’s a difference in type, not degree. For example, the government has the right to execute criminals and levy taxes but I personally do not. Nor should I.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
As Christians, we all need to read and re-read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis and his prologue. To summarize:
- Put all religious dogma/doctrine aside and discuss Christianity from a unified moral framework
- Lewis compares Christianity to a great hall with many doors.
Each door represents a particular organized religion.
1st step is to enter the hall based on a personal belief in Christ and his “moral” teachings
Then patiently wait until God inspires you to enter a door.
After entering a door, do not disparage or ridicule people entering into other doors.
If we all followed Lewis advice, we would move past our doctrinal differences and recognize that Romney represents the core values of the “Moral Majority”; values that can and will shape the future of our country for the good, regardless of whether he is Mormon, Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, or even a member of a non-Christian but strong value-based religion like Judaism.
We cannot afford to be divided over doctrinal bickering in a time of great moral decay. We should elect based on experience, leadership, and values.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I’m a C.S. Lewis fan, but I can’t agree with you that doctrine should be put aside for the sake of unity. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but as I read it, taken to its outer limits, that idea would have us yoked unequally - it smacks of the postmodern “what’s true for you is not necessarily true for me” idea. Additionally, while you’re correct in saying we shouldn’t disparage or ridicule, as Christians we are called to judge other Christians for the specific purpose of keeping bad doctrine out of the church. It’s a biblical mandate.
That said, I’ll put Mere Christianity back on my reading list for a re-read, because perhaps I’m misunderstanding you or what you said about Lewis. (And it is, of course, worth a re-read in any event.
)
As for how this affects politics - I hope it’s clear that I’d have no problem voting for him. As I said in the post, “How Romney worships is a great deal less important to his Presidential campaign than how we can reasonably expect him to behave once he’s in office. His history, positions, and goals are what is pertinent to this election, not what church he attends. If you’re going to reject Romney, do so because there is a better candidate, not a better Christian.
To the same conservative Christians who are prone to reject Romney now - what good did it do you that Bill Clinton is a Baptist?”
January 19th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
How about a Jew for president? Would that be WRONG too? Could I not be president once I’m 35?!
January 19th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Seriously, Ignacio, what on earth are you talking about?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Hi Laura, did u have a chance to re-read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? He is also one of my favorite authors. The reference I was referring to is in the preface, quoting Lewis…
“When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.”
Thus, I am not downplaying the importance of doctrine. You’re absolutely right, it is very important and should be discussed. But the moment it turns into an intellectual battle to prove one wrong, and the other false, I believe we’re missing the bigger and more relevant meaning of Christianity (or any other faith), which is love, humility, and service.
Does that make sense?
March 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I bought another copy, lent it to a friend and didn’t get back, and promptly forgot about it. I’ll have to check it out of the library. Right now I’m up to my ears in Knowing God by JI Packer, though. Thanks for the reminder!
I do agree that intellectual battles (which tend to be a benefit to one’s ego and not to the truth), should be avoided. I think the best way is, as he said, prayer. Let the Holy Spirit do the convincing; it’s not like you can “lawyer” someone into Christianity anyway. We serve, God saves. But there’s also an obligation to defend our doctrine. (Jude 1:3-4) I find that a hard concept to balance, but I believe we’re obligated to do both. I guess the key is to speak the truth in love, squelching pride and ego as much as possible. What do you think?
March 28th, 2008 at 12:03 am
I agree 100%: bold yet humble, always listening and open to new ideas. It’s a hard balance for sure. That’s the right approach and it helps all involved converge on the truth. Thanks for the dialogue.