Mitt Romney's Jesus is Just as Good as the Leading Brand

A lot of people think Mitt Romney chose to give his religion speech this week because he's afraid of the Rev. Mike Huckabee. (A man whose main qualifications for the Oval Office are a personal relationship with Jesus and the ability to lose weight.) Mike is breathing down Mitt's neck in Iowa, which can't be pleasant, because bulimics have terrible breath.

I think there's a simpler explanation and, touchingly, it has to do with faith. Mitt Romney made his religion speech during Hanukkah because he's the only candidate oily enough to burn for eight days.

If you missed the speech, it can be summed up pretty simply: He proclaimed the right of every American to freely and openly practice any religion, including his own, about which he won't divulge a single detail, even if you killed his children right in front of him, one after another.

And he doesn't care which of you atheist bastards and Islamic jihadists know it.

Now just give me your vote, and stop bothering me with all these questions. I've spent a lot of money.

--

It got a little slippery there for a second, what with name-checking Kennedy and Lincoln - who you'd think would have less to say about religion and more about gun control - but it came down to this:

1- Mitt loves religious freedom.

2- You love religious freedom.

3- Religious freedom is being threatened by atheists and people who ask Mitt a lot of fool questions about his relatives in the Star System Kolob.

4- If Mitt answers these questions, the ACLU will come to your town and kick over your crèche.

5- As long as we all love Jesus (or something more or less Jesus-ish) we can agree to disagree about the details.

6- If we disagree about the details, Jihadists will come and unstrenghen your family.

7- Wasn't it cool when George Bush Sr. crashed his plane and got picked up by that submarine?

8- I swear this was Mitt's opener.

9- Hey, George Bush is patriarchal and fell from the sky. Why don't we worship him?

Okay, to you and me it's all just the same old runny dogshit. You weren't going to vote for him anyway. Because you're reading a website, and computers work because of science. But did Romney make the sale to the evangelical values voters, the ones who pray people like us get struck down by a just and loving God, and it's painful and slow, and the sooner the better?

I don't think so.

Here's the difficult passage, the one Mitt raced through like the side effects of Nasonex:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

In other words: I'm glad you asked that question. I'm not going to answer it. As a tribute to this great land of ours.

Because here's the thing that Mitt Romney can't say: The Mormon Jesus has about as much in common with Jesus of Nazareth as the Los Angeles Kings have with King Tut. They have the same name, kind of, and that's it.

The Gospel Jesus lived in Galilee. The Mormon Jesus lived in Albany. (Where he fought the Indians. Because he wasn't just the Lamb of God, he was also the Last of the Mohicans.) Mormon Jesus? Three wives, a planetful of kids. Gospel Jesus? Living alone and loving it.

It doesn't even have the theological weight to be heresy; it's a simple case of mistaken identity.

And I know that sounds like I'm being flip, but that's only because I don't care. But if it matters to you, it really, really matters.

Mitt Romney wants Christians to think that Mormonism is just another "brand." (He called it a brand earlier this week, in Manchester. Which is how most really devoted people talk about their faith.) But most Christians are pretty brand loyal. It's kind of important to them. They didn't just choose their church for the parking. They like to think they've put some thought into it.

Evelyn Waugh thought that the difference between the real church (Roman Catholicism) and some fake-o crap (Anglicanism) was so obvious that if you couldn't figure it out, it was your problem. He said that trying to explain it was like trying to teach an Australian about architecture.

Mitt Romney doesn't want to explain anything. He just wants to blur the distinctions, change the subject, and make the sale.

Mitt Romney isn't proud of his faith. If he were, he wouldn't react to questions about it like he'd just been asked to describe his parents having sex.

He could put this whole thing to rest by answering one question about his Jesus, just so we know we've got the right guy: Was he Satan's brother? If the answer is "yes" -- and the Book of Mormon says it is -- Mitt and Pat Robertson are talking about two totally different Middle Eastern drifters.

See where profiling will get you?

Comments

[OhgReaTone]

The difficulty with Romney's Mormon faith is that it is anything but tolerant. It was formed on an Anti-Catholic theology - demonizing the Catholic Church as the Chruch of the Devil.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/10/10/mormons-the-beginning-theology/

[booker52]

Thank God someone else heard the same thing. Mitt talked alot, didn't say anything. Smoke and Mirrors!!!

[Purple Girl]

The more someone talks about their religion the more they become suspect.
Give me an atheist, a Buddhist, a Humanist, a psychologist, a sociologist an Anthropolgist- Soemone who deals in humans and the human condition. Not those so caught up in 2 millenia (or less) ago- the Here & Now !!!
I don't care if you believe aliens landed and populated the Earth- as long as you realize it's irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Address the environment, poverty and famine, disease,see War as a cope out (too stupid to logic it out)
"Messiah's and gods" are only relevant if they are used to improve all mankind- the shepherds of the earth and all it's inhabitant­s.Any act or doctrines that conflicts with this responsiblity is Heretical and should be ignored.

[SouthpawSass]

Mr. Kelly,

I always enjoy reading your work. I wish I had what you have in that head of yours... Great post and funny as hell.

Regarding Romney's speech, I felt as though I had crashed a party that I thought I was invited to, but once there realized I was out of place, surrounded by a bunch of strangers.

His speech was reminiscent of a banquet spread out on a lavish table. A beautiful presentation prepared exclusively for the Conservative Republican American Christians (CRAC). Oh sure they gobbled it down, having filled their empty souls, but it left me with a bad taste in my mouth and agida.

I'm no stranger to religion having been raised a Catholic, but I didn't feel Romney was speaking to me.

[gulopartisan]

The idea that a person's religion should not be a consideration in selecting elected officials is ridiculous.

Religions have supported ideas like the right to kill your children if they offend you. If a member of such a religion ran for office, I certainly would take into account that he espoused such an ugly "good."

As a student of Mormonism I know what Romney is required to believe, allowed to do, and constrained by. If he is a faithful Mormon, he is a dangerous man to every gentile (that's us, folks) in America.

Religion that is anti-education, offers secular privilege to its members, and preaches hatred has no place in a democracy. Let them blither their free speeches they would not allow us, but if they start running things, we are, as Pappy Bush said in his manly way, "in deep doo-doo."

[MiloWayne]

Mormon or not, I might have considered voting for the Mitt Romney who ran for Governor of Massachusetts. But that Mitt is gone, and Chris is right, he has to make the sale to a significant number of people who think his creed is a lie from the pit of Hell. He made his own bed, and it's a sure sign of how weak his candidacy is when the words "Christian leader" in an opponent's ad can undo all the money and time he has put into Iowa.

I do believe that our creator endowed us with inalienable rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the Declaration of Independence doesn't say a person has to be religious to enjoy those rights. I don't think Jesus had much use for religion, and the religious authorities of his time certainly didn't have much use for him.

[AristophanesJones]

"Okay, to you and me it's all just the same old runny dogshit. You weren't going to vote for him anyway. Because you're reading a website, and computers work because of science."

You're my new favorite blogger.

[dgrffy]

"If he were, he wouldn't react to questions about it like he'd just been asked to describe his parents having sex"

Well, a couple reasons. First, he didn't want to emphasize the differences between Mormonism and Protestant Christianity.

Second, in our modern culture, we sort of treat religion like we used to treat sex. It’s OK as long as you keep in the closet with the blinds closed. As many come to believe that Separation of Church and State means government sponsored secular philosophies endorsed while prohibiting religious speech in the public forum thereof, it has become mighty politically incorrect to talk directly about one's specific religious views. And remembering the general election, he couldn't be too specific. After all, Secularists vote, too.

[threadbane]

Hysterical! One of the best Huffpost columns of the year. I'm waiting for one of the reporters to ask him about his underwear.

[redford]

"You can't have religion without freedom"..­.undeniabl­y. "and you can't have freedom without religion." Really, Willard? This sing-song way of preaching, um speaking, doesn't always work and you do it a lot.

Willard's just another lying pretender who gets undue attention because 30% of this country are willing to follow anything. Sickening.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

You've got a new fan.

[vincent123]

It was revolting to hear Romney state that he would not let religion affect his policies. How about gay Americans? In Mass, as governor, he supported gay rights. Now, on the national scene, he adapts the most virulent anti-gay stance to pander to religious extremists in his party. When Kennedy made his speech, he meant it and he did not adapt the Catholic church policy against womens rights. Romney , on the other hand, states that gay Americans are second class citizens.

[rcat99]

On this topic, in public, the less said the better.

Unfortunately, in our political/social setting, anyone who aspires to lead has to convince those he is courting that they are a man or woman "of faith". It's a given. Somehow the perception is that voters, most of whom I suspect have pretty much the same ambivalent feelings on the subject, couldn't handle the blunt approach. We need to think, or at least imagine, that our leaders have some help, I guess, in case it’s needed to do the job, That extra arrow in their quiver when the chips are down.

Or is it just the discomfort we feel with those who go their own way?

I often wonder what we would find if we were to look below the surface. What would we hear if we could have a private, candid talk with our man of faith? Would the conversation have the same tone and certainty that we hear at the podium? Let's poll Congress: 535 secret ballots. What do you really believe? Just between you and me; nobody's gonna know.

[AxelDC]

Mormons just changed the introduction of the Book of Mormon from stating that the "Lamanites" are the primary ancestors of the American Indians to "among" the ancestors. Isn't this a tacit admission that the DNA testing by researchers such as Simon Southerton have proven that American Indians are closer related to the Chinese than the Jews?

If Joseph Smith claimed that his book was the history of the American Indians, and it turns out that the American Indians are from the other side of Asia than Jerusalem, doesn't that completely discredit Joseph Smith as a prophet?

[marleysghost]

All Romney had to say to show he really understands the situation is, "Under the Constitution of the United States there is to be no religious test for a person to hold office. My membership in LDS is irrelevant to my ability to govern."

Since he did nothing of the kind, he was simply pandering to the lowest common denominator, the fundamentalist faction of conservative Christians.

In failing to defend the Constitution at this early stage, he failed my test for holding public office at any level - even dogcatcher.