A Religious Test for Public Office?

There's been a lot of speculation about whether a Mormon, specifically in the person of Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, could be elected president in the U.S.  His religion is considered by some to be a hindrance, either because of suspicion about odd Mormon doctrines or because Christians would not vote for  Mormon.  Some see a parallel situation with John Kennedy's Catholicism in 1960 (and a lesser known Roman Catholic who lost his election Al Smith).  I've heard Christiana call into the talk radio adamant that they could never vote for a Mormon because he wouldn't be a Christian.  Now that's not a fair sampling, but it does reflect the sentiment of some Christians.

Now, I've heard a couple of Christians refine the objection a bit.  That view is that Mormon theology is so odd that a candidate's rationality and judgment would have to be in question if they believe it.  The problem with that in Romney's case is that he has a track record as governor that doesn't at all indicate a lack of judgment or reason.  More generally, the objection to electing a Mormon seems to be a lot more vague, almost visceral.

This hullabaloo actually confuses me.  Why is a candidate's religion an issue, especially when he has a demonstrable track record governing?  Why is not being a Christian pr specifically a Mormon disqualify a candidate for some Christians' vote?  Certainly we've had many decent leaders who were not confessing Christians.  And being a Christian hasn't guaranteed job performance (i.e., former President Jimmy Carter). 

Jesus Himself indicated that there was a Kingdom of Man that has different criteria of obeisance than the Kingdom of God ("Render unto Cesar...).  A candidate's religious convictions or lack of them might be among the criteria a Christian considers in making their voting decision.  But why would a Christian use that as a sole criteria ruling out a candidate?

I invite you to comment on your explanation.

Comments

[John Divito]

Melinda,

I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the following reasoning, but bring it up as the best argument I have heard so far.

In the LDS worldview, the prophet and president of the church is the mouthpiece of God. Additionally, the LDS church has God's authority invested in it. With this in mind, what role could the church play in influencing and even governing our country when our President is a member? A lack of sphere autonomy could be disastrous.

For an example, let's take the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently sent out a letter to be read in all LDS sacrament meetings across the country urging Latter-day Saints to support the FMA. Given the LDS worldview, how open are Mormons going to be in opposing the First Presidency regarding this political issue?

If applied to Mitt Romney, one could see the LDS church pulling some political strings. And this could be a huge problem for evangelicals. Mormons have shown theocratic tendencies in the past, what should we expect now?

Again, I am bringing this reasoning up for the sake or argument, not necessarily because I agree with it.

[Ann Marie Curling]

Ok, let’s take your argument.

According to Catholic Church theology the Pope is the mouthpiece of God, and therefore Catholics are supposed to follow his teachings.

Then why is it that when John F. Kennedy was elected President did he not act on the Catholic Church's behalf? I also find it hypocritical that these same people did not go after John Kerry in the last election because he was also Catholic.

Or is it that this country wants men of faith as their Presidents, but only the Easter Sunday varieties, and not the ones who actually live it.

Governor Romney has a track record of not leading as his church says. If that were the case he wouldn't have kept the laws on the books that keep abortion legal. Therefore I don't see him changing his style of leadership once he's elected President of the United States.

Ann Marie Curling
PR@electromneyin2008.com
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com

[Kevin Winters]

Anne,

Mormonism is not against abortion; for quite some time we have condoned specific kinds of cases where abortion is allowed. Similarly on the FMA, John McCain, another Mormon in office, voted against the ammendment, asserting that it was not the right way to 'enforce' (my word, not his) familial values. Romney has not done as you say.

[Kevin Winters]

John,

You say:

"If applied to Mitt Romney, one could see the LDS church pulling some political strings. And this could be a huge problem for evangelicals. Mormons have shown theocratic tendencies in the past, what should we expect now?"

And who hasn't? Are you honestly saying that Evangelicals haven't been active in "pulling some political strings"?

[Stamford Young]

Religious affiliation is one piece of evidence I will use in trying to discern a candidates views and character. But, it will not be primary and certainly not a rigid test for qualification or disqualification.

By the way, I found it interesting that Melinda said that "being a Christian hasn't guaranteed job performance (i.e., former President Jimmy Carter)". I'm guessing she meant "e.g." (it's an easy enough mistake), but some might say that "id est" is right on target.

[alan aronson]

Kevin is quite correct; recall Rove calling Dobson on Meyer's nomination to the Supremes.

The promlem with using "being Christian: as a screen is that both our best (Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt) and our worst (Pierce, Buchanan, Harding, Carter and Bush II) were (are) Christians as were those who fall inbetween including Nixon who is sort of in a class of his own (in both a good and a bad way).

As Melinda is a former teacher, I'm sure the "i.e." was an unintentional slip.

[Red Loser]

"And who hasn't? Are you honestly saying that Evangelicals haven't been active in "pulling some political strings"?"

Kevin, John never made that claim. I think he was simply showing an Evangelical's perspective. Why vote for someone who may be pulling the strings against you?

[Jeff Fuller]

Just to clear something up. John McCain IS NOT a Mormon.

You may be thinking of Harry Reid (Sen Minority Leader) who is probably the sole Mormon in congress that most of us are ashamed of (heard of RINO?--Republican In Name Only . . . some of us call Reid a MINO--Mormon in . . . ) Reid actually was a pretty moderate Democrat before taking the leadership reigns a couple of years back, and he is still pro-life at least.

Most of the 17 or so Mormons in Congress (5 senators and 11+ House members) are faithful believers and rational politicians at the same time. I'm just not getting how being Mormon is a detriment to political decision-making. With over 100 yrs of D.C. and state political experience (Dating back to Reed Smoot) don't you think any detrimental logic/belief would have been noted and corrected by the electorate? I would argue that the opposite has happened since a religion with ~ 2% of the US population has over 5% of the US congressional seats.

[alan aronson]

Jeff, if Harry is still pro-life how do his other political views make him a MINO? Does being a Mormon mean that you are against raising the minimum wage, a rational tax policy and a competent foreign policy? Is there no room for liberals in your religion?

[murphy]

Alan,

I can tell you how I see it (count this opinion as 1 USA mormon opinion out of 5+ million). Reid may be pro-life, but his votes against pro-life judges makes me think he's not pro-life enough. As for raising minimum wage, rational tax policy, and competant foreign policy, these are all things you'll find far more mormon diversity on. If you took abortion and gay marriage off of the national stage, you'd see A LOT more mormon democrats.

[murphy]

To address the general theme of "a mormon president would move the US capital to Salt Lake City":

Bear with me as I quote two mormon doctrines (Articles of Faith) VERY relevant to the presidency:

11. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

12. "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

These two beliefs are essential in ANY president. If anything, Romney will feel pressure to uphold these two central church teachings (a good thing, don't you think?). Romney recently quoted from Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address,

"America has a political religion and people who are elected to office must subscribe to this political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and the Constitution, above all others."

[murphy]

One more thing,

Christians who complain that "no intelligent person would buy mormonism" would do well to consider two things:

1. What rational belief is there in a flood that covered the Earth, a man who walked on water, or even of God in general? Mormon beliefs in prophets, angels, etc are also fantastic, but that's religion for you. Don't confuse believability with familiararity.

2. Like the author mentioned, if you want to determine if a mormon politician has his head screwed on straight, look at his track record. Listen to him speak. Make the same intelligent judgement that you would of any politician, without applying an unconstitutional religious litmus test.

[Kevin Winters]

"Like the author mentioned, if you want to determine if a mormon politician has his head screwed on straight, look at his track record. Listen to him speak."

If only we had done the same with Bush. Just listening to him speak seems to bring my IQ down a few points.

[Aaron Snell]

Murphy,
In regard to the first point on your last post, there is nothing whatsoever *irrational* about a belief in God (or Jesus walking on water, for that matter) - my belief in these things, if not entirely rooted in rationality, are at least strongly buttressed by it. To justify such a claim would place the burden upon you to demonstrate how a belief in God voilates the laws of logic and reasoning (which not even atheist philosophers have been able to do). If you'd like a supporting argument for the rationality of theism, check out many of Greg's articles on this site, particularly in the Apologetics section.

[murphy]

Aaron,

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant, and maybe I shouldn't have used the word "rational". I didn't mean to say that religious folks are "irrational". What I meant to say is that religious claims are by and large "fantastic".

In other words, I can't see how one can find particular mormon doctrines "too fantastic" for an intelligent person to believe, while at the same time finding other Christian doctrines NOT "too fantastic". What it comes down to is what a person is FAMILIAR with.

[alan aronson]

Muephy, the judge issue is more complex than choice/life. Judges also rule on issues concerning labor and contract law, the environment and a host of other issues. Unfortunately these candidates have views on these issues that render them unfit (IMHO) for judicial office regardless of their views on abortion. If voting for a nominee means rolling back the New Deal than most liberals and dems are going to oppose that person.

There is a certain amount of deception going on here too. Back in the 1980s Californians voted to remove the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court Rose Bird. This was an action driven by conservatives. It was spun around her opposition to the death penalty. Well, she is long gone and California hardly executes anyone and no one is making an issue of it, however following her removal there was a string of decisions that favored business over consumers and the like.

It is the view of many of us that the focusing of attention on abortion is a red herring - that the real target is turn of the century progressive legislation and the New Deal. Unless you are in the top two percent or so you will not be happy with the nation that results from these "pro-life" judges.

[Alan]

Alan,

No doubt the judges issue is more complex than choice/life.

I'm fully aware of the consequences of supporting across-the-board conservative judges merely to get one conservative agenda passed (in this case abortion). Perhaps for some republican senators, abortion is merely the bait to get social conservatives to help turn back the New Deal.

In answer to your question, I am NOT part of that top 2%. There are already decisions from the pro-life judges that I'm not happy with. But I simply can't see how any judicial issue (domestic spying, immigration, executive authority, New Deal, etc) is more important than the lives of over 1 million Americans per year.

Feel free to disagree. Plenty of conservatives also disagree, and would rather deport lots of Mexicans or save a few tax dollars than stop mass infanticide.

I long for the day when America has the moral fiber to decide not to kill its kids for its own selfish convenience. But until then, I know I'm getting roped and I'll keep taking it. After Roe vs. Wade is dead I hope we can fix a lot of the collateral damage to the other issues you mentioned.

[murphy]

Oops, that was very dumb. For some reason I posted that as "Alan" insted of "murphy".

[alan aronson]

We may have the law of unintended consequences operating here. One thing you should consider is that tne Reps (in terms of leadership) really don't want Roe repealed. Should it be reversed this will likely happen. As some states will always allow abortion, social conservatives will immediately try to nationalize the issue with legislation - Schaivo clearly showed this as do some of the posts on this blog referring to embryos as citizens. This will cause many who vote Republican and rely on Roe to rethink their positions. That plus the loss of Latinos will plunge the Reps into at least a generation of minority status. That is why the Reps need Roe to keep social conservatives in line.

I wish you would consider this: You will never stop abortion by criminalizing it. It didn't work before and with travel as easy as it is you certainly won't now. We will be better off with a solid safety net which will help to minimize abortion.

Also consider this There is a cost in terms of human life in electing conservatives so it isn't as clear as you seem to think it is. Criminalizing abortion will probably cut abortions but no where close to zero. Electing conservatives means unnecessary wars, a shattered safety net, less access to health care, reduced labor and environmental standards and crushing debt. All of these things also have a cost in human life.

[Aaron Snell]

Murphy,
Thanks for the response and the clarification - I see what you're saying. I would argue, however, that my objection to much of Mormon doctrine (and the objection of most thinking Christians, not the knee-jerk variety) is not whether that belief is too "fantastic." To me this is a moot point. Rather, it is a matter of *coherence*, specifically the coherence of several foundational premises upon which Mormonism is built. Nor does familiarity really play into my analysis - it fact, the familiar things, by virtue of being so close at hand, are the first to be tested (1 Thess 5:21 - "Test everything. Hold on to the good").

[murphy]

Alan,

You bring up good points, and I assure you I've thought over them before. I never said I was a happy with the political options.

Some of the issues you raise as having human suffering and death are fair points. This is what I so insensitively referred to as collateral damage. If you line up the numbers for me, do any of these issues amount to 1 million deaths a year? Complete environmental breakdown or nuclear war are the only possibilities as bad as abortion on demand, and these are things the public would "rally" against far more forcefully than the silent cries of fetuses piling in America's landfills.

You may not consider abortion the killing of human life, but pretend for a moment that you did. What would you think if the government were to say "You will never stop homicide by criminalizing it...We will be better off with a solid safety net which will help to minimize homicides to only a million a year".

You may be right about some republican strategists not wanting Roe repealed, for "the good of the party". I care nothing for their power brokering and manipulations. I would shatter the GOP and relegate it to minority status for the next 50 years if it were necessary. But it is still possible to strong-arm GOP senators to walk the walk they keep preaching. In fact, it's far more likely to be successful than voting democrat.

[murphy]

Aaron,

Ahh, coherence. Now THAT is something I can see many other christians having a problem with in addition to unfamiliar fantastic claims.

Theological coherence goes right to the "world view" of a religion. Two christians can read the same exact passage and end up with completely different doctrines. This is about fundamentals, and actually requires understanding of both sides (as opposed to bible bashing with two mouths and no ears).

If you're right, and most people have an issue with coherence and not fantastic-ness, I'll be very happy. It would indicate some consideration of beliefs going on in people's heads. This kind of thinking is the kind that rarely leads to bigoted religious litmus tests for presidents.

[alan aronson]

You have hit upon the problem here; we do not randomly or wantonly not kill each other because there is a law against it. There is a law against it because we sense it to be wrong and a society of any sort would be impossible if there wasn't an internal brake in most of us and that brake plainly doesn't exist for abortion esp. early ones. Abortion was against the law for quite a while and it was honored in the breech because, when push comes to shove, a fetus isn't a person to most folks.

I think you missed my point on the numbers. We are dealing at the margins here. If we currently have 1,000,000 abortions then taking out Roe will reduce abortions by some number less than 1,000,000 as some states will still allow it. For folks in the states that prohibit it, abortion becomes a class issue as anyone who wants an abortion and can afford a trip to a state that allows it will still be able to get one and add to that the number of illegal abortions. If you take the number of abortions that will occur no matter what and add to that the number of deaths that will result as a result of conservative misrule and any difference will be plus or minus at the margins.

Your comment about the Senators is interesting as you would put them in an impossible possition. If Roe goes the Reps lose votes; if they try to nationalize the issue they lose and if they don't they lose the social conservatives and lose.

On another note, I think I know what I would do even if I wished to criminalize abortion as I count our Republic as a far higher value and re-establishing and preserving it is far more important than any single issue. The single party state that is the goal of the modern conservative/Republican movement will eventually turn on you as all radical movements eventually do on their true believers.

In a free Republic you would be able to persuade others and to advocate policies that would reduce abortion.

And a solid safety net plus a few other tweaks would do more to reduce abortios than any criminal penalties you would be able to enact.

[Patrick]

Alan:"Electing conservatives means unnecessary wars, a shattered safety net, less access to health care, reduced labor and environmental standards and crushing debt. All of these things also have a cost in human life."

A little tit-for-tat

Electing liberals means massive infanticide, increases in terrorism, poverty,illiteracy, socialist business policies, lack of willingness to exploit the environment for human sustainence and well being, and rapant and irresponsible sexual immorality, with indoctrination of secular humanism forced through public schools as early as kindergarten.

To quote a rather blunt author, liberlaism is godless. May we never again submit to its dehumanizing, power driven tenets.

[Patrick]

Alan wrote "We will be better off with a solid safety net which will help to minimize abortion."

I sure would welcome one good reason why we should mimize abortion, Alan. Perhaps you could offer ONE?

[murphy]

Alan,

Good points, as usual. I'm especially glad that despite some things we disagree on (especially your claim that conservatives in office AUTOMATICALLY leads to debt and deaths), this discussion is not degrading into the typical "you crazy liberal godless whoremonger" rhetoric you hear from the Ann Coulters of our day.

To your comments about me puting Senators (those with a strangle-hold on pro-lifers to help pass their real agenda) in an impossible position, I would say to them "too bad so sad". I honestly don't think that overturning Roe will lead to a dominant one-party state (republican or democrat), as there is no shortage of disagreement within "unified" parties. Major realignments? Probably. I'm also fairly sure that the majority of Americans support some further nationalized restrictions (the next logical step after reducing abortion to a state-by-state issue) on abortion than currently exist, though not the abolition of it entirely.

In a free IDEAL Republic I would be able to persuade people not to kill each other, but the law exists to guarantee a standard of rights and freedoms for all.

To your comment about state-by-state abortion becoming a class issue (rich Texans traveling to CA for abortions), this is a mis-directed argument. Yes, to eliminate class distinctions is a wonderful goal when applied to access to education, jobs, discrimination, etc. But I feel little sympathy for poor people who say "Nancy Uppercrust can kill her kids, why not me too?". Isn't that a bit like the USA saying "China polutes a lot, why should we hold to a higher standard"? The right to abort your children isn't something you should be guaranteed despite class status, it's something that should be denied despite class status.

The amount of pragmatism I'm willing to tolerate may surprise you considering my conviction on this issue. To your social safety net I say bravo, but it's not getting us there. If better access to birth control and education (regardless of income status) can reduce abortions, go for it. Push abstinence and adoption programs too. And if abortion is still legal in blue states but not red, well that's still an improvement.

[alan aronson]

Hi Patrick, whatever status one assigns to a fertilized human egg at whatever stage of development, one can still find abortion problematic from the standpoint of the individual and society.

No one aspires to an abortion and it always represents a failure of some sort. Often, but not always, it is the best of a number of bad outcomes.

As for your laundry list, you really need to be specific. Rattling off the standard wingnut list of liberal sins in getting old. Randomly and arbitrarily assignimg godlessness to folks who you don't know seems like a good way for you wind up spending eternity paddling around the lake of fire with your favorite author (and that would really be hell).

"Electing liberals means massive infanticide", Reagan signed the law in California liberalizing abortion.

"increases in terrorism," As I recall Bush ignored the memo that summer. see Ron Suskind's new book "The One Percent Solution".

"poverty," Social Security and Medicare massively reduced senior poverty and the meme that the war on poverty failed is a conservative lie. Poverty is up under Bush

"illiteracy," Specifics? Some of our schools are doing just fine others aren't.

"socialist business policies," This is a bumper sticker slogan - any specifics?

"lack of willingness to exploit the environment for human sustainence and well being," Ditto.

"rapant and irresponsible sexual immorality, with indoctrination of secular humanism forced through public schools as early as kindergarten." Private sexual behaviour isn't the government's business. Are you saying that the government has a role here? The SH line is another social conservative canard. Pat, you seem like an otherwise nice guy, throw away your RNC talking points and come into the light. Oh, how can you stomach AC after her recent excesses. Is there room for decency in your movement?

Patrick, just found this:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/23/repeal-the-bling-taxermestate-tax-or-not/

and this:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/23/privacy-for-the-common-good/

[Patrick]

Alan Wrote:
"Private sexual behaviour isn't the government's business. Are you saying that the government has a role here?"

Yes, I do. The government should protect from sexual predators and not allow perverse and indecent people to advance thier agenda on 6 year olds.

"The SH line is another social conservative canard."

I do not think that I would be wrong to suggest that 90% of those who label themseves secular humanists are found in liberal circles, not conservative.

"Pat, you seem like an otherwise nice guy,"

Thank you, as do you - I just believe that you are wrong about almost everything important.

"throw away your RNC talking points and come into the light."

I would not give one penny to the RNC, and would gladly confront thier hypocrisy on a number of points.

" Oh, how can you stomach AC after her recent excesses."

I am not sure what "stomach her means". Her manner is horrible and her message is typically right on. She is partly right about the four widows, inasmuch as they use thier grief and anguish as a shield from whence they hurl accusation and then retreat. Thier method is dehumanizing and exploitive, and in no way helps them through thier grief. They need serious help and counsel and should be left alone by the master manipulators that consitute the liberal media and Deomcratic leadership.

And I agree that both sides have to some extent done that. But is is characteristic of liberals, and indeed is thier calling card. The rank hypocrisy, racism, and elitism that attends liberalism is without equal in any recent political movement.

"Is there room for decency in your movement?"

I think that our definitions of decency are vastly different.

As to the link, I see nothing more than mockery of a black woman that does not fit the liberal agenda, and discussions about privacy that are a rabbit out of the hat for a party that has violated almost every consitutional safeguard to protect gun ownership, a parents right to protect thier children from sexual predators, the right for an unborn child not to be torn to pieces from the womb in Al Queda type fashion, and the right not to have the government sieze your property for private devlopers that hold hope for fulfillment of a liberal utopia/tyranny.

I hope that is specific enough for you, Alan. And no thanks for your offer of "light". I prefer not to smoke.

Part of the link was left off sorry. If you go to the main page and scroll down to the post with the pic of Paris Hilton (not too far down and the pic is G rated) there is an interesting graph.
http://firedoglake.com/

Patrick, your misconceptions on liberalism are seemingly hopeless however you should really reflect on your acceptance of AC, the willingness of conservatives to tolerate her is a sign of a movement in serious moral-compass decay.

Murphy, what concerns me on the class issue is that we are developing an increasingly class based society with decreasing mobility. That is deadly to democracy and anything that adds it it harms us all.

The rigidity that comes with the abortion issue (everything defined and analyzed in terms of "babies are being killed" evades more serious issues.

[myclob]

Great article. I recently saw Mitt Romney respond to questions about his faith, and typed up his responce.

I put all this work into typing it up, and am looking for places to post it.

I hope you see it as relevant to your article...

This exchange takes place at about 12:20 into the video at this location:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=mitt+romney

(The punctuation and spelling are by me).

Guest host Judy Woodruff: …Religion really played a role sense JFK, do you think it would play a role if you ran?

Mitt Romney: Oh, I think initially. Some people would say, Gosh, I don't know much about your faith, tell me about it. And I’d probably outline the fundamentals. I’m a religious person. I believe that Jesus Christ is my Savior. But then as you get into the details of doctrines I’d probably say look time out, let’s focus on the values that we share. And fundamentally the values of my faith are very much like the values of other Judeo-Christian tradition values. And I think Americans want to have a leader who is a person of faith, but their not going to get terribly involved in the differences of doctrine, as long as the values we share are common.

Guest host Judy Woodruff: John Kennedy, we remember, looked for and found a venue where he could talk about his catholic faith. The Houston ministry is a very famous speech that he gave. Would you look for and are you looking for a place were you can make a statement like this and are you looking for the right place and time?

Mitt Romney: Not really. Not at this stage. You know its possible that there will come some point were there is a question that galvanizes interest and there is an occasion to say something that cuts through the confusion that may develop but at this stage it is kind of hard to predict what will happen. I mean I remember in the race with Ronald Reagan, it was in his debate that he said, “I’m not going to let your youth and inexperience become an issue in this campaign”. That sort of put aside his age issue. And there may well be something of that nature. I just don’t think Americans will do something the constitution forbids. The constitution says that no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office in these United States, and I don’t think my party or the American people would ever do that.

Guest host Judy Woodruff: But there are some aspects of Mormonism that many Americans might not understand… are these legitimate issues for people to ask you about?

Mitt Romney: There is a leap of faith associated with every religion. You haven't exactly got those doctrines right, but if you have doctrines you want to talk about go talk to the church, because that's not my job. But the most unusual thing in my church is that we believe there was once a flood upon the earth and that a man took a boat and put two of each animal inside the boat and saved humanity by doing that.

Guest host Judy Woodruff: We are familiar with that story.

Mitt Romney: There are unusual beliefs associated with each faith and I’m proud of my faith and happy to talk to people about it but fundamentally my race for governor, my race for senator before that, and if I run for nationally its going to be about the values that I have, and the values that I think should be emphasized in this country and answers to the kind of challenges that we face, because I believe that America is at a critical time, and I believe those are the types of issues that people will focus on.

I wish those who are trying to tear down Mitt Because of his faith would listen to this quote, by one of our church leaders:

When you go into a neighborhood to preach the Gospel, never attempt to tear down a man’s house, so to speak, before you build him a better one; never, in fact, attack any one’s religion, wherever you go. Be willing to let every man enjoy his own religion. It is his right to do that. If he does not accept your testimony with regard to the Gospel of Christ, that is his affair, and not yours. Do not spend your time in pulling down other sects and parties. We haven’t time to do that. It is never right to do that.

Contributor, August 1895, pp.636–37.

[Flipper]

So far I haven't seen anyone in this forum or in the media stories about Mitt Romney's religion who has articulated my point of view.

I am not against his ascendence to the presidency on the grounds that he has a strange religion or that he is a member of a non-Christian cult, or that his religion would pose a problem with how he might govern.

My objection, and why I would never vote for him, is solely due to the fact that this would be just too good an opportunity for the Mormon PR machine. It's the best in the world.

The LDS church would milk the fact that our president is LDS for all it's worth. And I truly believe that thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting people would be open to Mormonism and eventually convert if we were to ever have a Mormon president.

As evangelical Christians, if indeed we believe that Mormonism is a false religion that is leading millions to a Christless eternity, this will be something to seriously consider before casting a vote for Mr. Romney for president.

[alan aronson]

I would guess that the LDS are too media savvy to do anything that crude. Ripper's political calculus is precisely what the Founders didn't want and why they rejected a religious test. I wouldn't vote for Romney for policy reasons but it would be wrong to vote against him because of his religion.

BTW, it turns out that the Udalls are Mormon, Democrats and fairly liberal. That cheers me up.

[xselder]

Dear Murphy, wow! I have really enjoyed your posts here. (And I rarely tell anyone that.) How is it that such an educated, and otherwise intelligent person, can believe in Mormonism over Christianity? I say that laughing, as I have no intent in my heart to be insulting, and I wonder how much of my heart is wrapped up in familiarity. But, correct me if I am wrong, didnt Joe fail to be able to decipher the plates in his test (leading to the second batch?)? And didn't your God the Father get promoted from another planet to being our God the Father? (Leaving the problem of the uncaused cause still at large). And I also REALLY have an issue with the fact that Joe reportedly saw the Father and son in human form in the woods. The trilogy works as Jesus being the physical manifestation of God in the shape of a man. Nowehere (NT or OT) does the bible make it clear that God the Father shows in a human form. (But honestly, I really loved your posts [esp your comments on abortion and class] and look forward to you replying to this.)

[alan aronson]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3970622

This view could just as easily be held by a Christian.

[murphy]

Flipper,

While you say that: "I am not against his ascendence to the presidency on the grounds that he has a strange religion", you later on go to say that you would never vote for him because of the whoopla that members of his religion would make. I can't come up with a solid reason for this not being a contradiction.

If I were a betting man, I'd give you any odds you want that the LDS church leadership will not promote Romney's presidency at all. As you probably know, the Church generally stays out of politics with exception for a few prominent social issues: http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/0,19489,6054-1,00.html

As for the individual mormon-on-the-street folks getting excited about a mormon president. Well, you're probably right. Forgive them if they delight in how far the acceptance of their faith has come from America's recent history when it was legal to kill mormon men, women, or children: http://www.answers.com/topic/extermination-order

The general mood of your post seems to indicate that Americans are too foolish to be trusted in making religious conversion decisions. Better to not give them an example of a REAL mormon, lest they start questioning all the false anti-mormon rumors that certain other denominations have been spreading for the last several decades, hmmm?

[murphy]

Alan,

I'm assuming the following quote is from you, though I didn't see your name attached to the post. Sorry if this is mistaken identity.

Alan: "Murphy, what concerns me on the class issue is that we are developing an increasingly class based society with decreasing mobility. That is deadly to democracy and anything that adds it it harms us all."

Yes, increasing class distinctions and decreasing mobility in our society IS harmful to democracy. You go on to say that puting abortion as issue #1 is so rigid as to avoid more serious problems (I assume you mean societal class distinctions as a more serious problem).

The short of it is that there IS NOT a more serious problem. I do think there are other problems, but not more serious than right-to-life issues. Life is the starting point upon which all our other rights are predicated. What good is education, or free speech, or religious discourse, or any other cherished right going to do to an aborted child?

True, these rights (and others) mean more to YOU than they mean to the child, because your parents thankfully did not decide to have you killed. But would you give up your life right now so somebody whom you never met could have better access to health care?

[murphy]

Dear Xselder,

Thanks for the very nice complement of me being "otherwise intelligent". If anything your post made me chuckle rather than take offense.

If I were to limit my information to that which I found on certain anti-mormon websites, I too would doubt my own intelligence in belonging to such a rediculous cult. What I ask of you is to merely consider the possibility that you have not heard all the facts, and that some of what you have heard is wrong. For my part, I won't try to misquote you, bible bash you, mince words, or hide doctrine. Honestly, I'm more conerned that people know the facts about the LDS faith than I am with people joining the LDS faith.

1. "didnt Joe fail to be able to decipher the plates in his test (leading to the second batch?)?"

-- I'm not sure what you're refering to, but it may be the "plates of Lehi", the translation of which were stolen and the plates themselves were not RE-translated. Is that what you mean?

2. "And didn't your God the Father get promoted from another planet to being our God the Father?..."

-- In a nutshell, yes. This is the doctrine of "eternal progression", more widely known as deification. The famous saying (this is not scripture) is: "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become". There's a LOT of depth one can get into on either side of believing or disbelieving this, but it doesn't sound to me like this is your major interest.

3. "And I also REALLY have an issue with the fact that Joe reportedly saw the Father and son in human form in the woods. The trilogy works as Jesus being the physical manifestation of God in the shape of a man. Nowehere (NT or OT) does the bible make it clear that God the Father shows in a human form..."

-- Yes, you got this part exactly right. And you're wise to choose THIS as your MAJOR issue with mormonism since it gets right to the crux of many things. Joseph Smith claims to have been visited by God and Christ while praying in the woods nearby his home. Furthermore, he claims that they were "two personages" (see http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1). Is your disagreement here with the visitation itself, the concept of "two distinct personages", or the idea that God has a body?

What you may find even more incredible is that I don't find these things to contradict the Bible...rather it adds to my belief in it. Feel free to ask why. My only request is that all participants in this conversation use their ears.

[alan aronson]

Murphy, the most serious issue is the USA remaining a free and democratic country. If that ends the rest is moot.

Let me ask you a question or so: I understand that you believe that there is an person with a soul from the moment of conception. Do you understand that many if not most of your fellow citizens disagree with that? Absent broad agreement do you think you can legislate your religious beliefs (please don't use murder as an example as just about everyone has always agreed that murder is wrong)?

If the other actions of those who would make abortion illegal resulted in more net deaths would you still vote for them?

Would you prefer a police state where abortion was illegal or a free republic in which abortion was a personal decision?

To me this is a no-brainer. A realistic assessment of the political realities make the hard questions irrelevant. Even granting your assumptions, the overall agenda of those for whom you vote will cause more suffering and death than electing those who favor personal choice.

[xselder]

Regarding: "Would you prefer a police state where abortion was illegal or a free republic in which abortion was a personal decision?
""

Alan you forget that this is a unique issue, different than all other liberal conservative ones. This issue is about whether or not abortion is murder.

So just rephrase your question and I think you would know what every antiabortionist, conservative person would answer: "Would you prefer a police state where MURDER was illegal or a free republic in which MURDER was a personal decision?"

[murphy]

Alan,

Are you suggesting that voting for republican pro-lifers will end our democracy and turn America into a police state? By "police state", do you mean to compare conservative policy with that of North Korea? I still haven't seen any convincing numbers you can give me to say that pro-lifers cause more death than they would save. I think there are some exagerations here...

As for legislating my religious beliefs on other people, I wouldn't dream of it. But is it a religious belief for me to point to a sonogram and say "that is alive" and "that is human"? Most babies' hearts are beating before a mother even knows she's pregnant. They have their own unique blood and DNA. They even know the sound of their parents voices before they're born. Do these sound like characteristics of "a clump of cells" or "just another part of the mothers body"? These are not religious beliefs. For NARAL and the rest of the pro-abortion cause, they are the Ultimate Inconvenient Truth.

[Flipper]

My point is that the LDS organization often courts unsuspecting members of the public--as they do at the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawaii--and wins converts through these clever means. Or by emphasizing their pro-family culture while downplaying their unorthodox doctrine. Let's face it, they do a great job of spinning the positive message.

And I doubt that they would have to do that much officially to promote his presidency. The fact of Romney's religion just being out there would cause people to let their guards down. It's not about American foolishness, it's a matter of spiritual warfare helped by Biblical ignorance among many Christians.

[murphy]

Flipper,

Ok, it's not as if people come for a tour of the Polynesian Cultural Center and then next thing they know BAM, someone's got a bag over their head and they're getting baptized. LDS pro-family culture is emphasized simply because it IS the emphasis of our religion.

In any case, you're still advocating the use of a religious test for electing the next president. It doesn't matter whether you say:

1. I won't vote for a mormon politician because I fear mormon theology, OR

2. I won't vote for a mormon politician because I fear adding credibility to mormon theology

This is the whole point of the prohibition of a religious test in the Constitution: to not only guarantee tolerance for all religious expression, but respect for it.

[Patrick]

"Patrick, your misconceptions on liberalism are seemingly hopeless however you should really reflect on your acceptance of AC, the willingness of conservatives to tolerate her is a sign of a movement in serious moral-compass decay."

My conceptions are entirely accurate and you are merely restating something you have never demonstrated. There is nothing in this country more morally bankrupt than liberalsim. It has coast millions of lives from abortion to aids. It has nothing to offer humanity.

[Patrick]

Please note that I said "liberalISM" in the post above and not liberals. I should have drawn the distinction there, just in case. As it is, liberals do not live by all the isms of liberalism. Indeed, they betray those isms by insisting on standards and moral codes. Would that so many could see that liberalsim can only lead to anarchy and chaos, which is why the vast majoity of Americans will not endorse the ideology at the polls.

[xselder]

Dear Murphy;

About your posts on LDS belief. I took a little time to reflect, as I hate saying stupid things. (Unfortunatly for these discussions I am more science smart than philosophical smart). Anyways, I admit I have been instructed about Mormonism from those that disapprove. This does not mean I take that teaching lightly. I have also been warned about Jehovah Witness, Muslims, Hindu, Unification Church, Scientology, Unitarians, etc and I believe in those wanrings. I would not sit down with a satanist and listen to his garbage just to "give it a fair shake." That being said I realize that mormons try to be good citizens, and live wholesome god-fearing lives, so there must be some positive tenents to their religion. But if we do not worship the same God, then ultimalty those tenents will be useless for salvation.

REGARDING: Is your disagreement here with the visitation itself, the concept of "two distinct personages", or the idea that God has a body?

The two distinct personages. Christ is the human form of the Trinity.

REGARDING: the doctrine of "eternal progression"

I do have issues with this. This is one of the things that seperates Mormons from Protestants and Catholics.

I would search hard for this God of yours Murphy. Make sure that he is real.

" aids." Patrick, huh?

"Alan you forget that this is a unique issue, different than all other liberal conservative ones. This issue is about whether or not abortion is murder."

xselder, if we view abortion as a public policy issue, we can get broad agreement on policies that will reduce the number of abortions. If a minority takes an all or nothing approach on criminalization far less will be possible. Part of the problem is that most of the minority who cry "murder" really don't believe it. Their position is ideological, not theological. Test yourself. If abortion is murder then it is capital murder under any definition in this country. Do you advocate execution or life without the possibility of parole for the doctors who provide abortions and the women who get them? Also if your view is correct then every embryo in a freezer is the equivalent of a post-birth human being imprisoned without due process until they die.

In the mid-ninties I served on a committee that dealt with issues unrelated to abortion. One or two people always wanted to make abortion a litmus test - rejecting any candidate who was against abortion. Most of us disagreed; we were all liberal and pro-choice but we were also able to set the issue aside for what, to us, was a larger good.

"Are you suggesting that voting for republican pro-lifers will end our democracy and turn America into a police state? By "police state", do you mean to compare conservative policy with that of North Korea? I still haven't seen any convincing numbers you can give me to say that pro-lifers cause more death than they would save. I think there are some exagerations here..."

Murphy, a few years ago I would have disagreed with you and I, in fact, disagreed with friends on the left who voiced sentiments similar to my present views. However, it appears that they were right and I was wrong. While I had come to disagree with many conservative tenents over the years, I had failed to appreciate that the conservatism I related to (Goldwater) had ceased to exist. I also failed to appreciate that underlying the anti-communism of the neo-cons was an idealism as unrealistic as the ideology they opposed. I also failed to appreciate how corrupt and power driven the Republican Party had become. Couple that with an unbelievable level of incompetence and you have a lethal mix.

There is a crunch coming. It has become apparent to many that there is a flaw inherent in conservatism that goes beyond mere policy disagreement: In the hands of smart operatives, conservatives can win elections but can't govern. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html

Also I am sort of following a "if you build it they will come" philosophy - one not inconsistent with the Founders. Using 911 and the phoney "War on Terror" as an excuse, a police state apparatus is being built and human nature is such that if it is there it will be used.

Lastly it appears that we have a real crisis looming and we have to get the adults back in charge. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009077.php and http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131)

A couple of links of general interest:
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=428

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115104569108049169

Take the states where abortion will likely remain legal should Roe be overturned, add some significant fraction of those in states where it will likely become illegal (people will travel) and you will see why abortion should not be a litmus voting issue.
http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/3500603t.html#t2

[alan aronson]

Oops, me above, butthen you probably knew that.

[alan aronson]

One other thing, Folks like flipper have the best of intentions, I'm sure, but their using Christianist principles in their political decisions will not only impact heathen like me. South Park did a show on Mormons a while back and their point was that while the theology sounds weird to most of us, Mormons are good people with strong loving families. That is all that should matter to the rest of us.

[Patrick]

By citing aids as the fruit of liberalism, I do not intend to dismiss personal responsibility, I am merely pointing out the cost of the greater society reinforcing permissiveness and moral decay. Aids is a perfect example of a certain conduct creating a problem. Liberalism, in its many stripes, seeks to promote what is clearly problematic and unnatural sexual conduct, indeed to teach it to our children. And clearly, aids is most problematic among homosexual populations:

"# A 1997 New York Times article reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting HIV by middle age.
# By 1998, 54% of all AIDS cases in America were homosexual men and 90% of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity.
# The life expectancy for homosexual males is from eight to 20 years less compared to heterosexual males.
http://www.narth.com/docs/defy.html

And I apologize for not being in any way sensitive in bringing that up in my earlier post.