Yesterday presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave his long-anticipated religion speech, hoping to allay voter concerns about his Mormon faith. Taking a page from the JFK playbook, Romney assured voters that he "does not define his candidacy by his religion" and that he would "serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
O.K., but there are a couple of problems.
This is almost as troubling as JFK's 1960 speech to a group of ministers in Houston when he tried to assure a group of Vatican-haters that they had nothing to fear in electing a Catholic. In short, like Kennedy, Romney appears to be selling out. Both men have essentially said that their religion does not affect their political life. In contrast, consider the words of Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis:
"The Church teaches us the truths of the Faith, according to which we are obliged, in conscience, to live. Voting, an important civic act, must also be in accord with the truths of the Faith. In teaching the truths of the Faith, the Church helps us to discipline our thinking correctly, including our thinking about voting."
How meaningful can any man's faith be if he is not willing to let it influence all facets of his life? Anything less is just "Sunday Christianity".
Did I say Christianity? Oops. That brings up the OTHER problem. Mormonism is not Christianity.
All right, all right--I know a lot of Mormons will take offense at that statement, but mainstream Christianity--even Protestant Christianity--has a few basic tenets in common that Mormonism does not accept. For instance, all Christian denominations accept that God is a Trinity. Mary, conceived Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. Mormons believe that Jesus was conceived by physical sexual relations between God and Mary. Mormons believe that while Jesus did die on the cross, His sacrifice is not sufficient to cleanse us from all of our sins.
I could go on and on, but my point is that Mormonism is not Christianity and all the PR and whitewashing in the world will not change that. This is not meant to condemn Mormons. I grew up in the west, a region with a large Mormon population, and one of our closest neighbor families, who were close friends to us, were Mormons. In fact, like Howard Hughes, I have a strong liking for Mormons, as most of them are honest to a fault and behave in a way that puts most Christian denominations to shame.
But they're not Christians.
But back to Mitt--his Mormonism is a concern that is not going to go away because of this speech. I like Mitt Romney and agree with many of his positions. He also possesses the "executive look" and glibness of tongue that appeals to the shallow tastes of the average voter. But I have a real hard time trusting the free world in the hands of a man who actually believes that Joseph Smith translated golden tablets with a new message of salvation.
Does this mean I would never vote for him? That depends. If his opponent was someone like, say, Hillary Clinton, I probably would vote for him. After all, I'd feel safer with a Mormon than a Satanist.
9 comments:
If I use theological beliefs as a reason "not to vote" because I disagree with both candidates beliefs, I have capitulated my own beliefs.
If everyone, who disagrees with the theological beliefs of both candidates, refuses to vote based on that rationale, then the "authority to elect" is ceded to those with whom I disagree.
One of the two MUST be closer to my beliefs than the other!
If I use theological beliefs as a reason "not to vote" because I disagree with both candidates beliefs, I have capitulated my own beliefs.
If everyone, who disagrees with the theological beliefs of both candidates, refuses to vote based on that rationale, then the "authority to elect" is ceded to those with whom I disagree.
One of the two MUST be closer to my beliefs than the other!
You would vote for a Mormon over a Satanist? Depressing but funny! I once heard that they misunderstood the words "Brigham Young" when the Mormons headed over those mountains to bring more people. What they were a yellin out was "Bring em young" for that fun hobby of polygamy, an older example of the diversity card (that works out well for the husband if his wife is dumb) which is still alive and well!
I have a simple theory, since I was former scientist, they have to be within a 1% error of the Church's teaching. If not (which apparently everyone is). I vote for myself until someone who reflects the Values of the Church fully comes along :)
The constitution allows for NO relitgious test. On abortion there are many Christian denomintions that allow for abortions but an individual can still believe it is immoral. My brother is Mormon and that is what he believes. The question is Mitt's claim he is a Christian. In his speech he said he believe that Jesus was the Son of God and savior of the mankind. My Mormon brother reads the Gospels, New and Old Testaments and believes in the Word of God. His beliefs leads him to lead a very Christian life. I think Our Lord would accept him as a Christian.
You make some interesting points. Please be patient with me as I attempt to address them:
1) You have posted under the moniker "A Catholic Christian". That's a bit redundant. It also suggests that Protestant denominations are in fact the "real" Christians and that Catholics can be as well, when, in fact, the reverse is true.
2) If, in fact Mitt believes what he said in his speech, all well and good, but there is much in the Mormon faith that is flat-out contradictory to Christianity and his speech in no way negates that.
3) Of course the constitution allows for no "religious test" ( I can still hear Walter Mondale invoking that). That was not the point of this story. My point is that it is hard to take seriously the faith of any man, regardless of his denomination, if the faith comes in second to his political life. If nothing else, such a faith is an insult to the martyrs who gave their all for the faith. If you truly believe and have convictions, you can't limit them to when it's convenient or never defend your faith if it might offend someone.
4) The fact that your brother is a Mormon may explain your post. And, as I said, most of the Mormons I have known live in a way that puts the average Christian to shame. However, good behavior does not change the fact that the Mormon creed is NOT Christianity. It's not a matter of what you or I think or feel that Our Lord would accept. It's what the Church teaches.
Thank you for posting on my blog.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a cult. They believe that God the Father is intimate with one of his spirit wives in heaven,and thus our souls are born, and place into a woman. This comes from a Catholic pamphlet I used to explain Mormon beliefs to a friend. They use the name of Jesus, just as Muslims do, but niether believe in CHrist as the only son of God, part of the Trinity, a core Christiain doctrine.
"In short, like Kennedy, Romney appears to be selling out. Both men have essentially said that their religion does not affect their political life."
Watch the speech again, he does not sell out. He says that the leaders of LDS will not influence him, but of course his faith will inform his decisions. You are right about JFK though, he did sell out. Romney is a good man and has led a very good life. His religion should hold no sway over how people vote. His character should. You should also read more into how he changed on abortion. We should want people to convert on that issue and not reject them when they do. Giuliani is Roman Catholic and is more or less "pro-choice" so the religious tag doesn't really make much of difference in that case. I hate abortion as much as many pro-choice people, but we all have to come to grips with the fact that in order to get rid of abortion we are going to have to change individuals, not the government. Government-wise, abortion isn't really going anywhere soon. We had 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Bush... abortion is still there. Sure it moves a bit here and there, but to make a real impact we have to change hearts and minds individually. Take a page out of the 1860 Republican playbook. They took the middle, not abolitionist nor pro slavery. They fought to contain slavery in order to get rid of it. They won by taking the middle, then expanded the middle.
Actually since the Mormons teach that members shall be gods one day they actually are spouting the same old lie that Satan did with Eve. I think I'd vote for the Satanist first. At least he's honest about what he's about.
Post a Comment