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
(Fact Check – Part 2)
Your take on gays is somewhat skewed. Mormons believe that human spirits existed prior to birth and that those spirits were in male or female form. On that basis the Church oppose sex reassignment surgery. Conversely, homosexual relations are deemed sinful in the same sense that all extramarital sexual relations are (e.g. see the New Testament under fornication & adultery). The Mormon Church will not be persuaded that homosexual lifestyle is desirable or that "gay marriage" is acceptable. But at the same time, the Church does not advocate intolerance or persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender persons (or anyone else). Any Mormons that do so are indulging their own biases or bigotries, not acting in accordance with anything taught them by the Church.
I am thoroughly confused by your revulsion to the notion of continuing revelation. Isn’t communication supposed to be a good and enlightened thing? Assuming you believe that there is a god in heaven, wouldn’t you think it was a good idea for him to communicate his will to his children on earth? The predominance of contending religions on earth seems like ample evidence that finite-minded men divining what they think the will of God is from the Bible alone. Don’t you remember the Crusades and Inquisitions in which men thought they were executing the will of God as justified by the Bible by killing others? No, it would seem that things would be run a little better if he were actually revealing His will to mankind through prophets, as He did throughout biblical times.
That any adult living in the 21st century America could swallow the whoppers of semi-literate 19th century farmer and convicted con-man Joseph Smith is proof of the astounding capacity for irrationality in the human animal.
Religion is a human invention. That's all it is. Mormonism was just invented by a particularly off the wall individual.
We'll know that America has finally outgrown its intellectual diapers when a Presidential candidate can say that in a debate.
Belief in religion is a form of self-imposed mental slavery.
For the individual, freedom does not require religion: it requires the absense of religion.
You forgot to mention that great revelation that came from the Mormon Church's founder Joseph Smith, when he was caught in an adulterous affair and then received a revelation about polygamy. The Blacks and the priesthood revelation conveniently came when the church might lose its tax exempt status due to blantant discrimination. And the reason for the NEW revelation about abandoning polygamy, that came around 1896 when Utah wanted statehood. How convenient! Remember Warren Jeffs anyone?? Yes. That kook was a modern day Joseph Smith. Warren Jeffs is/was a crazy law breaking freak - as so was Joseph Smith in the 1830's - Mormans are very nice people, the problem is their beliefs spawn off of frauds and lies. When someone believes these things, their concept of truth must be questioned. We don't need another President who does not understand truth. See George W. as a prime example.
Of course we have to evaluate someone's religious beliefs and wonder how that might impact their presidency. But has this fact ever not been true? I'm not a Mormon or a Christian, but all this uproar over Romney's particular faith strikes me as coming from a place of intolerance against Mormonism. We had a Catholic president in Kennedy, and technically, he was supposed to follow the Pope on all matters--and of course, he did not. Now we have a President who has daily talks with Jesus--and that doesn't bother us? What is Jesus telling Bush that he can't tell me or you? Whatever you call it, religion is essentially the same, even when it appears strikingly different. Fortunately, we have checks and balances in this country to prevent a theocracy (at least in theory!). Romney's Mormonism is only an issue because the rest of the good Christians in this country are prejudiced against that faith and are uncomfortable with it. Personally, I think they're all just jealous of those beautiful Mormon temples (which the rest of us cannot enter) and that rockin' Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Next topic, please!
Mitt, tell us about the white salamander, the magic spectacles that made the gold tablets written in special Egyptian hieroglyphics readable (and why they magically disappeared) and the magic underwear that protects you. There are just too many fantastical beliefs in the Mormon Church to take seriously, but make you wonder about the intelligence and the ability to separate fact from fiction that a president would need it is very scary. Since you brought up your religion than we have a right and perhaps even a duty to ask pertinent questions about the strange beliefs that you hold so dear and how they would affect you judgment or should I say cloud your judgment.
Republicans cry foul when it is pointed out that Romney campaigned to free a rapist, who then went on to rape and kill again.
How is this any different than the Willie Horton campaign launched by the Republicans when Michael Dukakis ran for president?
As a gay, Latino/Native-American/European Neopagan feminist, I'm certainly no fan of a conservative religious man like Mitt Romney, but to attack him for his religious beliefs, and call them "bad," and claim his brand of Christianity bears no relation to "real" Christianity?
That's just plain, old bigotry.
I happen to also be someone who believes Jesus was gay. The US Constitution gives me that right.
Who is anyone to tell me I'm wrong or that an entire religion built on the premise that Jesus was gay is not "real?"
Black people were considered decendents of the first murder, Mormons considered BLAK SKIN and FLAT NOSE as the Mark of Cain...according to Brigham Young. Only after two major lawsuits by Blacks concerning a 12 yo. Boy Scout in 1974, and the 1976 ordination of a Black man to the preisthood (which excumunicated the white Mormon) and which ended up crippling a police officer did the "revelation" about Blacks being allowed preisthood rites MIRACUOUSLY APPEAR out of the blue, (out of the Black and Blue of being battered in the courts, is more like it!)
Mormon Women were ordered to get on buses and sign petitions against the ERA, by MALE church elders.
A pamphlet given just to young Mormon men for 20 years supported gay-bashings.
Any minority, woman or LGBT person ought to be scared SH*TLESS at the thought of a Mormon president, or God Forbid a Mormon stocked Supreme Court.
Exactly, Now, about God being some guy who lives on the planet Kolob...
If he doesn't bring his strange religion into the arena of office, why is he pandering to the homo-haters suddenly, and the rest of the contradictions?
Let's have more public display of;
The Mormon belief -
After his resurrection, Jesus came to America to preach to the Indians, who are really Israelites. By AD 421, the dark-skinned Israelites--the "Lamanites"--killed off all of the white-skinned Israelites--the "Nephites"--in various battles. The records of the Nephites were recorded on golden plates which were buried by Moroni--the last living Nephite--in the Hill Cumorah.
[ RanchoBob says - "Now that's just CRAZY talk! The Indians were really Israelites? Raise your hand if you think that is true. Or even makes sense as an allegory."]
Joseph Smith
1400 years later, Joseph Smith uncovered the golden plates near his home in upstate New York. He was a prophet, given visions in which he was told to organize the Mormon church because all Christian creeds were an abomination. By maintaining a rigid code of financial and moral requirements and through secret temple rituals, Mormons prove their worthiness to become gods. Everyone will stand in judgment before Joseph Smith, Jesus, and Elohim. Those who are sealed in the eternal marriage ceremony in the LDS temple will become gods with many goddess wives, ruling over many planets and spawning new families throughout eternity.
If more Americans knew what this cult believes, then Romney, despite his perfect replicant charm, would not be a contender.
Combined with his false conservatism - why are we even having this discussion? Because he is rich, and paid for much of his own prominence.
Do we want a guy who believes the above, and wears special religious underwear in the white house?
I'm an atheist, and I would prefer a person wearing a Yarmulke.
If religion is in our face 24/7 then we can criticize and make fun of it just like everything else in life. When the spiritual becomes political it is fair game - no divine immunity exists.
Boo hoo, they criticized my religion...
It's like a person going naked in public then crying foul when someone says they are fat.
I don't understand why people can not leave it at home.
"it's like they are bent on establishing a new religion in America."
This statement by Romney bothers me on a couple of levels.
First, as was mentioned by someone else here - even if someone is creating a new religion - so what? That's what a free country is mandated to allow. Romney comes off as a religious bigot here.
Second, what Romney is really railing against is "secularism". Which is really a euphemism for atheism. Unfortunately for Romney, atheism is not only allowed by the Constitution, it is protected by the Constitution. But you wouldn't know this is America today. People like Romney, and Bush, and Huckabee, and the Religious Right in general, have created a situation whereby candidates for the Presidency cannot claim that they are atheists without being savaged for their view and have no chance of winning.
Actually, I think I would trust an atheist more to keep us from Armageddon. Since an atheist doesn't believe in any afterlife, he's more likely to concerned with protecting his own life, family and friends' lives and the lives of others such as those in the military. Using an athesist's logic, if there is no other life other than this one, you want to be damn sure of your justification before you cause the deaths of others by your policies.
Of course Romney could never see this logic. He's so one dimensional, I'm surprised he doesn't disappear when he turns sideways.
So, you found the Mormon position on abortion a little too complicated?
I want to first state that I am a Liberal and an Agnostic.
I watched Romney's speech on C-SPAN last night, and I have to say I was impressed. He articulated the proper role that religion should play in our government. I don't feel that the separation between church and state means that we should only elect atheists and agnostics. I feel that it's true intention is to articulate that the government should keep it's hands out of religious affairs, and the church should keep it's hands out of governmental and political affairs.
That being said, I didn't really believe him. To me, the whole evangelical part of his religion stands in direct contradiction to the idea of the separation of church and state. That applies to "born-again" christians as well.
"Live by the sword, die by the sword".
Republicans took Evangelicals into their "big tent" and made religion "the test" for political viability in America. Karl Rove, and Rodger Ailes exploited this technique and created the Reagan Revolution and the Bush Era.
But, in doing so they have inadvertantly landed in their own trap. Like Briar Rabbit, they find themselves with a collection of misfits running for President that don't meet their own test. That is... unless they can change it a little.
Formerly, you had to be a Christian (a real one) or a Jew to belong to the club.
But, now, as long as your either a Christian, A QUAZI Christian, or a Jew, you're okay, but if you're any other religion, or not involved with religion, you're a FREEDOM HATING TERRORIST, and can be spied on, arrested without warrant, impisioned without habeus corpus, tortured indefinitly, and finally excuted, based solely on this test.
And it's no accident that with Obama's advancing in the polls, the GOP is out making sure Romney is annointed as qualified to bear the standard. They know their base may be uneasy with Mormonism, but...
"... they don't treat blacks like humans exactly, do they? And they know how to keep their women barefoot and pregnant, too."
The southern strategy hasn't died, Karl Rove is just trying to crawl under a different sheet.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
