|
||
Mitt's Bad Faith
Is it fair to vote against a candidate based on his or her religious beliefs? Why not? Tolerance is one thing. Endorsement is quite another. As no lesser a sage than George Carlin has pointed out, one's religious beliefs are strictly voluntary. Unlike your race, ethnicity or gender, it's you who chooses what to believe or not.
Now that Mitt Romney has introduced his religion into the center of the political arena, I think we have every right to evaluate him, in part, on precisely those beliefs. No surprise that Mitt -- who has was pro-choice before he was anti-choice, who was tolerant of gays and immigrants before turning nativist and homophobe -- would now want it both ways when it comes to his Mormonism.
First he said this: "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."
Then he said that: "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
That said, should I care just exactly what those Mormon beliefs are?
Damn straight I should. And I do. Mormon beliefs could have a profound effect on vast swaths of public policy as the religion reporter of The Dallas Morning News pointed out earlier this year. Mormon doctrine holds that the constitution of the United States was divinely inspired; that welfare undermines the higher value of self-sufficiency; that traditional families must be strengthened and that women should be those primarily responsible for child-rearing; that abortion, with some exceptions should be banned, and that each person has an inherent gender that pre-existed in a life before birth and that each of these identities can never be gay.
Worse, Mormons subscribe to the notion of so-called "continuing revelation" which, boiled down, means that a practicing member of the church can have a dramatic epiphany at any moment that would alter the basic dogma. That's what supposedly happened thirty years ago when official church policy was altered to allow blacks full membership in the Latter Days Saints.
That's to say, it wasn't until 1978 that Mormons processed the "revelation" that people with dark skin might really be, um, people. What revelation might a President Romney have some afternoon while doodling in the West Wing?
Mitt Romney's free to be a Mormon and free to run as a religiously-inspired candidate. And I'm just as free to reject him for his religious beliefs as I am for his positions on the war, taxes and torture. Now, that's real tolerance.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There is a lot of blind ignorance and hostility towards Mr. Romney's faith.
From all the attacks, you'd never guess one of the reasons Missouri mobs were incited to drive the Mormons out. As Frontline explains, "... residents of Missouri, which had entered the Union as a slave state, resented the fact that Mormons did not endorse slavery and feared that a Mormon majority would abolish the practice. For many reasons, opposition to Mormons quickly grew violent."
Black history within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints begins in 1832, when the first black member was baptized. All members worship side by side and have never been segregated. This is an excellent timeline shows Black Latter-day Saint history side-by-side with other moments in black history.
http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/history.html
Finally, black men were ordained to the lay priesthood from 1836 to 1879, and then again from 1978 to the present day. For more information about this, a videocast called, "Blacks and the LDS Priesthood" by authors Darius Gray and Margaret Young is available here: http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/media.htm
What Romney did with his speech was misdirection. He said, look I'm not your problem; I'm a jesus dude too. The problem is those non-believers! Those secularists! The religion of secularism. He's using an external enemy to prop up his own legitimacy; that's so much like a despot.
That crap in a speech about tolerance. It's a shame he pushed into a corner by the religious nuts in this country and has to say stupid contradictory things to get the wing-nut nomination. It's scary that someone with his ability is capable of stooping so low.
Huckabee version of Christianity is very, very strange too.
Most people with half a brain will never vote for Romney or Huckabee. They are certifiable screwballs.
The job of President requires an astute politician, not 2 phony pretend to be Christians.
If this wasn't so serious it would be funny.
Huchabee or Romney hmmm which one is more of a fool than the other one........
I am displeased how the misuse of words and the blurring of definitions get by the media, without clarification, especially when the sole purpose of the speech was to clarify the mystery of the conviction towards his Religion's beliefs.
In the Mormon religion, Jesus of the Bible is the son of god (small letters). They believe that when they "get to heaven" they become a god too, and therefore they are also a son of god! They therefore, it could be argued, live their lives to serve their Religious Doctrine to become a god. The actively serve in the rituals, and they acheive through a system of hierarchy within their church. That demands certain activities and adherance and performance standards.
When Nutt Romney substitutes the word "faith" for Religion he also being disengenuos at best. Whenever I get up to go to work, it is not to serve my religion (at least not mine), however I have faith that I can and will get up to go to work, provided something unforeseen or forgotten doesn't prevent me. It is the same for my co-workers, they have faith, based on the belief that they know I am supposed to be at work there, again provided something has not happened to change that outcome, it is not a part of their Religion, nor does it change or conflict with their Religion to believe that I will be at work.
Nutt Romney said nothing that means anything!
People's beliefs basically filter everything they percieve through that interpretation, that's why it's important to know every candidate's basic religious views, however, saying that Mitt believes every bogus idea in the Mormon church is probably short-sighted, then again, he didn't address the issues of just what about Mormonism he believes, and since there's no way to actually defend religious beliefs without using the "holy" text that inspired those beliefs, he's not going to broach the subjects.
All religions are based on beliefs. Conversion happens when a true connection with "God" is hijacked by a set of dogma that is overlaid in the person's mind. Notice how everyone that practices a religion finds it to be at least fulfilling enough to continue for a while? Whatever you believe is true.
Awareness is the new belief.
Mixing religion and politics reduces us all to fools. Bad theology and political absurdity, both born of ignorance and laced with conceit, are not the answer. They are, in fact, the very heart of the disease that has crippled a once great nation.
Mormon is a goofball religion that dictates how you live your life, just like Scientology, Moslem, Moonie, Jehovahs, 7th Day, and on an on. It's a crutch for people who lack the brains to figure out their own lives themselves. Do we really need another moron as President? Hell no.
Just as it is un-American to deny candidacy to public office based upon religion, it is preposteriously absurd for voters not to seek and obtain clarity as to what religious baggage a candidate intends to tote from his house into the White House.
It is not enough to examine the moral turpitude of a candidate as proscribed by his or her faith. No religion advocates killing, stealin, lying, adultary, for example. All religions cite the male as head of the household, wives and children as varying forms of chattel, and that the scripture as interpretated by the heads of the faith be adhered to. The question ultimately comes down to how much of that faith will be checked at the statehouse door. I shudder to think of what might have been had Joe Liebermann been elected Vice President and the extent his Judaic faith might have compelled him to side with Israel when the opportuniy to invade Lebanon, or even Iraq presented themselves. And I have not a shred of doubt as to Joe's moral integrity.
Although I became aware of the Mormons documented aversions toward the darker races, unconventional clannishness and attitudes toward marriage, I never gave the sect enough thought to become Anti-Mormon, primarily because as long as Mormons kept their business in Utah, I could quite easily manage my aversions toward them.
Only Mormons can go to heaven, they teach, because only Mormonso have earned the right to be there. The history of the sect ranges from the severely dubious to the absurdly preposterious and enshrouded in such secrecy that even the CIA might envy.
Few, if any,truly expected JFK to take orders from The Vatican. But Mitt looking to Salt Lake City for inspiration and guidance remains another matter entirely.
"Faith of my fathers" leaves much to be desired, given the manner in which his fathers exercised their Mormon faith. Mitt would have been better served to address such critical and valid concerns, not condescend to give us a lesson on basic civics.
Our founding fathers could not know what shape politics would take centuries later, but when they prohibited a religious test to run for president they left us a hint of what spirit they wanted our elections to be in. They have failed, or we have failed them.
However I agree that if a candidate discusses publicly their religious beliefs and cannot assure us these beliefs don't indicate delusion, then we have a duty to judge this candidate on his religion.
Anytime we talk about america's future we discuss technology and the steps we must take to reclaim technological dominance. How can our goals ever be achieved if we continue to elect leaders who don't even believe in basic scientific method?
Anyone want Baptist anti-evolutionist, anti-gay, anti-CHOICE, minister Chuckles Huckabee selecting Judges and Supreme Court Justices for LIFETIME positions......anyone?
Anyone want racist, anti-CHOICE(this year), anti-gay(this year),anti-immigrant (this WEEK), against equality for women, Mittler selecting Judges and Supreme Court Justices(Orrin HATCH) for lifetime positions....anyone?
Nothing else has to be asked about these two BAT SH*T CRAZIES!
if mitt promises to make polygamy legal i might vote for him
Its sad to think that a person of any religion must explain his beliefs to the citizens of this country. This runs afoul of everything our country is supposed to stand for. I am a liberal democrat and would not vote for Romney. His religion is not a negative to me. It is his Politics. And that is the way it should be.
The Hukster & Mitt do not believe in Science. The Hukster does not believe in Evolution. Mitt doesn't believe in DNA Science. That bothers me.
Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. That means that humans stemmed from Native Americans, which is fine with me except that DNA Scientists have shown that the first homo sapians originated in Africa.
I would never vote for any person that negates Science.
I was bothered by Romney's comment that God gave us liberty. In other words, God was on our side in the Revolutionary War.
Isn't that the same sort of thinking that motivates the so-called "Islamo-fascists" that Romney talks about. Like Romney, the Muslim extremists think God is on their side.
(Fact Check – Part 3)
Your assertion that members of the church can have epiphanies that can alter dogma is quite erroneous. As promised in the New Testament, members are entitled to personal revelation concerning their own testimonies and lives when they prayerfully petition God. Revelations regarding church wide dogma would be revealed through an ordained prophet, not to every Tom, Dick and Harry with a Book of Mormon.
Your interpretation regarding the alteration of church polity “to allow blacks full membership in the Latter Days Saints” is a half-truth that implies that the Church is bigoted. This is wrong. The first Mormon presidential candidate, Joseph Smith, ran on a platform that called for the abolition of slavery twenty years prior to the Civil War. The practice of slavery has always been regarded by the Church as abhorrent. Mormons were also early supporters of black suffrage efforts. From its earliest days, the Church proselytized dark skinned “peoples of color” especially among Native American, Hispanic, Asian, and Polynesian cultures. It is true that blacks of African descent were not actively proselytized. As was common during those times, interracial marriage was discouraged although never outright forbidden. Blacks have always been welcomed to join the Mormon Church and the “prohibition” against black males holding the priesthood, which the 1978 revelation corrected, was never absolute and was publicly proclaimed to be a temporary restriction. Today, the LDS church is seeing some of its greatest growth in black African countries and the church is truly an international and interracial church in every respect. Again, any members that persecuted or treated blacks unjustly, before or after 1978, did so as a result of their own prejudices, not because of anything that the Church endorses.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
