Jonathan Rauch draws attention to a Nov. 20 open letter signed by Christian intellectuals.
Jonathan comments:
I interpret the release of this document, at this moment, as a warning shot directed at the conservative movement and, less directly, the Republican Party. The gist, in my own translation:
1) “Opposition to abortion and gay marriage will be the two issues for the social right. Forget about diversifying the portfolio or changing the emphasis. Not gonna happen on our watch.”
2) “Never mind polls showing gradually increasing acceptance of gay marriage. Never mind the country’s now-majority support for some form of publicly recognized same-sex partnership, even among younger evangelicals. Homosexuality is ’sexual immorality,’ now and forever, and public sanction of same-sex sexual unions is unacceptable. Period.”
3) “Don’t even think about going squishy on either of these issues, because, if you do, we will split the movement. You have been warned. It’s opposition to gay marriage to the bitter end… or civil war.”
I see the Declaration as part of the Republican/conservative drive toward a smaller, purer party/movement. I suspect it will help deliver the “smaller” part, anyway.
I think Jonathan has missed the lede on this story. Here’s the lede:
A declaration intended as the defining statement of conservative Christian principle in the post-2008 political landscape – endorsed by over 150 people over a period of a month – found room for not a single Mormon signatory. Mormons may contribute generously to social conservative causes like the National Organization for Marriage and the campaign against same-sex marriage in California. But when it comes time to define what is Christian and what is not, Mormons are not to be included. I have to think that’s ominous news for the Romney 2012 campaign.
61 responses so far
1 Carney // Nov 27, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I like Romney and after some hesitation and vacillation backed him in 2007-8 over his rivals as the most competent, intelligent, disciplined, telegenic, stable, and capable candidate in the field who was conservative enough in all important issues and likely to remain so after being elected.
But a big reason for my hesitation was indeed his Mormonism. I believe it was Christopher Hitchens who wrote a devastating column going into great detail why Mormonism in some ways is like the Catholicism of American Know-Nothing imagination, particularly in regard to the top leader.
While actual Catholicism pre-Vatican 2 did indeed lean toward monarchy rather than democracy and was not fully committed to the rights of non-Catholics in a Catholic-run or Catholic-majority state, claims about the Pope’s absolute power were mistaken then as well as now. The Pope is de jure, rather than merely de facto, hemmed in by literally millenia of written and unwritten precedent, law, scripture, tradition, and the actions and words of past popes. If he knowingly and clearly breaks with them he automatically loses his office and authority.
In drastic contrast, the Mormon faith in an important sense has had as a central cultural feature an explicit rejection of the idea of binding past precedent, even binding precedent set by its own President-Prophets or even the iconic founding figures of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, as they themselves attested. Thus, true-believing Mormons owe absolute allegiance to a figure who is bound by no limits and whose commands on anything thus cannot be predicted with certainty. As a practical matter, the leader of the Mormon Church will have been selected from among its senior leadership and will in all reasonable probability be an exceptionally stable, cautious man, conservative in temperament and behavior (not just in ideology). Still, these limits on him are merely de facto, rather than de jure, as illustrated by the 180-degree turns on such core issues as polygamy, leaving a greater than zero level of uncertainty.
2 Carney // Nov 27, 2009 at 3:45 pm
To respond to Rauch, I don’t think too much should be made of Nicene Creed Christians defining themselves as Christian and by implication excluding Mormons. You don’t have to accept the distinctive faith claims of any religion to see and understand that Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians have enormous areas of overlap and common ground, and have through their relatively lengthy existence constituted the definitive mainstream of Christianity.
Non-Trinitarian churches such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unification Church (Moonies), Unitarian Universalists, and so on are, objectively speaking, recently emerged spin-offs from the mainstream, historic Christian tradition, and differ from it in ways sufficiently radical so as to make classifying them as non-Christian, post-Christian, or Christian-based or -derived, reasonable and defensible.
In all likelihood, the exclusion of Mormons from this group and its statement was not necessarily a conscious, affirmative, deliberate decision – adding them might not even have occurred to the participants – Mormons simply exist outside the mental map of most Christians as they contemplate inter-Christian ecumenical cooperation efforts, especially outside Utah.
3 aDude // Nov 27, 2009 at 4:22 pm
If Baptists wish to exclude Mormans, if Catholics wish to exclude Unitarians, or if Greek Orthodox wish to exclude Moonies it should have no effect on politics. But if conservatives define themseves through a narrow religous test, then they will forever be in the minority.
At this point, the candidate in the best position to defeat Obama in 2012 is Mitt Romney. But I have already seen postings here and in other blogs stating how conservative Christians would never vote for a Morman, even if he shares their political views. This is the clearest path to an eight year Obama presidency.
4 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Carney:
Not to them.
Mormons very much consider themselves Christians. Romney does.
For other Christians to “classify them as non-Christian” would be to put Mormons outside the mainstream of American religious life. You won’t get that without a fight on their part.
5 Chekote // Nov 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Romney is political toast. His flips flops on social issues in 2008 showed him to be phoney and untrustworthy. Romneycare has not been as success. Stop wasting time polling on Romney for 2012. He is finished.
6 BarryS // Nov 27, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Have to agree with Chekote, Romney is finished as a political force. Not that he ever was one in the first place. If he can’t beat McCain and was even behind Huckabee what hope is there. The Christofacists will not vote for him in a primary.
He is king of the floppers and comes across as a smarmy know all. Don’t forget the “goodhair” image which turns plenty of people off.
7 Chekote // Nov 27, 2009 at 5:45 pm
There is a Stepford Wives quality to his family. Too perfect.
8 Grizelda // Nov 27, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Unlike race, gender or appearance, one’s religion is a matter of choice – or, at least at is once you have moved out of your parent’s house. Therefore, the degree of ridiculousness of one’s religious beliefs is fair game. And Romney, Huckabee and Palin all have seriously ridiculous religious beliefs.
9 Paul_Derengowski // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Have to disagree with sinz54 when he says, “For other Christians to “classify them as non-Christian” would be to put Mormons outside the mainstream of American religious life.” Actually, Mormonism is non-Christian, yet are in the mainstream of American religious life. It’s that they’re outside the mainstream of Christian life and thinking. They’re a cult, a counterfeit if you will, and Mormonism’s only link to Christianity are the terms and phrases it has stolen from Christianity to try and make it look like something that it is not.
Also, have to disagree with aDude as well. Mitt Romney is not the best candidate to beat Obama, since we’re still two years away from even knowing who all the candidates are going to be. One thing is for sure: Romney is not someone I will vote for, not only because he is a Mormon with a whacked-out worldview, but because the guy can’t keep his story straight. He is nothing more than a misguided opportunist, and frankly speaking, we’ve already got plenty of his type already in office. The only differences being they don’t have visions of becoming a god one day, and Romney does. And that ought to tell you something right there.
10 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Paul_DerengowskI:
So you could never vote for anyone whom you did not regard as a Christian?
11 Paul_Derengowski // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:28 pm
sinz54,
I won’t vote for someone who claims to be one thing, when the evidence is quite clear that he’s something else. Romney purports to have a Christian worldview, but the reality is, his worldview is about as much Christian as Jim Jones’ was. And I seriously doubt that anyone in their right mind would want to vote for a Jim Jones-type.
12 PracticalGirl // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Call me crazy (and plenty of you will), but hasn’t the right learned anything from the disaster of the ‘08 election? The economy was taking a dive before McCain was the winner; Romney had a strong, sustained record on successful governance through economic woes. But many would not vote for him because he was a Mormon, even though he also had a clear, sustained record of NOT governing a la Joseph Smith but smartly and soundly.
The GOP is doomed if it increasingly turns itself over to the narrow and bigoted views of the extreme religious right. Talk about a “whacked-out world view”…
13 sdspringy // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I could not vote for an atheist or someone in scientology. Too large of a difference in our outlooks on life and thus probably policy, however Romney did not bother me. Of course some of his flips were a concern and his implementation of MA. Healthcare was an issue but I liked him better than McCain.
What I thought was an inaccurate statement in the analysis was that homosexual marriage was somehow a loss of votes for conservatives. Never been proved true by any statewide election, ie. CA. MA. Plus every state, even Oregon, has passed legislation opposing gay marriage.
But Frum has never proved able to correctly analyze the conservative movement. Just continues to push his version.
14 JedMerrill // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:47 pm
As a Mormon, I can tell you I don’t care if other Christian churches define their own standards for Christianity. To me, Christianity means I believe in and follow Jesus Christ, and I will be judged and saved by him. I leave judgment to the Lord.
The difference between Mormons and other Christians is that Mormons believe we have MORE of the words and teachings of Christ. Does that make us LESS Christian? We don’t reject what other Christians have in the Bible. We claim it, read it, love it, and do our best to actually live it.
True religion has little to do with the little details of what one believes, and everything to do with how well we live up to what we have. Do we visit the sick and take care of the poor? I think that says more about whether a person or faith is Christian than whether we agree on whether baptism is by sprinkling or immersion and other such technical matters.
“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” – James 1:27, Bible, KJV
You may not agree with everything you hear about us. What is important is that we preach Jesus. Jesus was approached by one of his disciples who was concerned about a man they had seen preaching in his name who they did not know. What did he say? Rebuke him? Fight him? No, Jesus said to let him be.
We Mormons might just be the best ally YOUR freedom of religion has ever had. We follow the dictates of our own conscience, and allow you the same privilege.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1
All “Mormon” scripture:
http://scriptures.lds.org/
15 Chekote // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:49 pm
but hasn’t the right learned anything from the disaster of the ‘08 election?
No.
16 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Paul_Derengowski:
Rep. Eric Cantor has never claimed to be anything other than what he is: A conservative and a devout Jew.
If Cantor announced his candidacy for President in 2012, could you see yourself voting for him? Or is the fact that he’s not Christian a deal-breaker for you?
17 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 7:36 pm
PracticalGirl:
Having totally ignored the data in the exit polls,
the Right has learned the wrong lessons from that election.
18 anniemargret // Nov 27, 2009 at 7:46 pm
It’s absolutely absurd that any candidate should be judged on their preference on how they worship God, or not at all. The only thing to judge a candidate should be their ability to lead, their apparent and proven intelligence, their worldview and their morality.
There are many atheists and agnostics who are deeply moral people, as well as religious folks. Religion is a but a window on universe and our lonely position in it, or our fear of life and eventual death. It is but a path, but there are many paths .
A man or woman who aspires to be the most moral they can be, which means to strive for the Truth, is the best candidate…. being able to be pragmatic when the choices aren’t clear isn’t a bad trait either
Enough with all these religious litmus tests. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they subscribed for the separation of church and state. There is no mention of God in the text of the Constitution.
Romney is not a good candidate because I think he is a bit too coy and flippy and plastic, there’s some charisma there that is lacking…. his Mormonism wouldn’t be a problem for me, unless he started preaching as President!
19 Grizelda // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:19 pm
anniemargret – if a politician believes in magic underwear, the literal truth of the bible, or “Left Behind”, then it reflects very poorly on their intelligence.
20 Chekote // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:22 pm
The main problem with Romney is his phoniness. Never much of a culture warrior when running in MA, he tried to turn himself into the leader of the home school Christian wing of the Iowa GOP. But even they saw through him and opted to support the real thing: Huckabee.
21 Chekote // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Grizelda,
Faith, religion hava nothing to do with intelligence or rationality. As Archie Bunker said “Faith is believing in something that no one in their right mind would.”
22 aDude // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Let me see if I understand the position of some in here. Are you really saying that if the choice in 2012 is between Obama and Romney, you would not vote for Romney just because he is a Mormon? Four more years of higher taxes, restricted trade, and larger government just because a guy who clearly the conservative has funny views about golden tablets?
I totally understand those who might not like Romney because his politics have changed over time. That’s exactly the right way to view him. But to reject him because he chooses to remain in the church of his father is a sure path to permanent minority status.
23 Grizelda // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Chekote – it is about time we started pretending that any irrational thing can be excused by drawing the veil of “faith” over it.
24 balconesfault // Nov 27, 2009 at 11:18 pm
for what it’s worth – had Mitt Romney been a Democrat, his hopes of ever achieving the Presidency would likely have been quashed on August 7, 2007, when he claimed that his sons were serving our country not by enlisting, but by driving around Iowa in busses campaigning for their dad.
Seriously – imagine this being a candidate that Rush Limbaugh was dead set against ever being elected, instead of a candidate Limbaugh favored.
25 Carney // Nov 27, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Balconesfault, the difference is that other than Ron Paul, Republican presidential candidates in 2008 were not campaigning on the basis of choosing to lose in Iraq.
Thus, by campaigning for their father, the Romney sons were not only in a generic sense being good citizens and seeking to promote good government, they were, in effect, seeking to ensure that America won in Iraq and our enemies lost.
As the terrorists, our other enemies, and their US and foreign media enablers are all well aware, the home front is the most important battlefield in this war. The enemy is physically incapable of driving our men from contested ground; but they can produce enough incidents and casualties to allow the media to undermine our will to grit it out and win. Remaining actively engaged in the political arena in favor of an anti-defeat, pro-victory candidate is quite arguably from both a practical and moral perspective a way to serve our country in its time of trial.
Still, that quote could easily be, as it was, taken and spun to seem like an egomaniac or out-of-touch politico’s gaffe. Then again, as I said, there’s a good reason it wasn’t fatal to Romney, because everyone knew he wasn’t and isn’t a surrender-nik.
26 Carney // Nov 27, 2009 at 11:51 pm
That gaffe was also one of the very few Romney made in the entire campaign. He is highly disciplined and sticks to a carefully thought-through strategy and message. He understands that each time he says something it is the first time that thousands or millions of people have ever heard it, and thus is willing to repeat, repeat, repeat – he is in it to win, not to entertain himself or the “boys on the bus” along the way. Contrast this with men such as Newt Gingrich or John McCain who quickly grow restless and bored, and seek to stimulate themselves or amuse the press corps, chaotically thinking out loud or blurting off-message gaffes a-plenty. Over time, each such mistake contributes to an erratic image and harms the campaign.
27 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:20 am
adude wrote: “Four more years of higher taxes, restricted trade, and larger government . . . ”
What taxes have been raised, what trade has been restricted and what do you mean by larger government?
Are you identifying policies Obama and Congress have actually implemented or are you merely thoughtlessly reciting GOP talking points?
28 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:23 am
Carney wrote: “Remaining actively engaged in the political arena in favor of an anti-defeat, pro-victory candidate is quite arguably from both a practical and moral perspective a way to serve our country in its time of trial.”
What constitutes actual victory in Iraq and Afghanistan?
29 MormonsAreChristian // Nov 28, 2009 at 3:26 am
Evangelicals shouldn’t get hung up on excluding non-Trinitarian Christians from public office:
A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration? The Nicene Creed’s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one.” Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit,” and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity.
. Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. For example, it was an emperor (Constantine) . who introduced a term, homoousious, which defined the Son as “consubstantial” (one being) with the Father. Neither term or anything like it is in the New Testament. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
Furthermore, 11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were non-Trinitarian Christians http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/richard_price.php The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts and the Founders.
http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com
30 balconesfault // Nov 28, 2009 at 7:08 am
Carney: As the terrorists, our other enemies, and their US and foreign media enablers are all well aware, the home front is the most important battlefield in this war.
I am in awe of your ability to carry off such satire with such pitch perfect consistency. I usually break somewhere and show my hand. Absolutely Swiftian!
31 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:03 am
chekote:
I’ve seen public opinion polls that show that more Americans would vote for a Muslim candidate for President than would vote for an atheist candidate.
32 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:12 am
Notice that the poster “Paul_Derengowski” ran away rather than answer my question about whether he could support Eric Cantor for President.
Unlike Romney, Cantor has never flip-flopped about either his conservatism or his Judaism. I can only assume that “Paul_Derengowski” would refuse to vote for anyone whom he didn’t consider to be a “true Christian.”
Sadly, that’s probably representative of the entire evangelical wing of the GOP.
33 oldgal // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:32 am
This sends my memories back to the times when JFK couldn’t have been elected because he was Catholic, Reagan could not have been elected because he was divorced, and Obama could not have been elected because he was black. Christ’s teachings were inclusive of everyone, how is it that the Christian religions have become so exclusive? I am concerned that a good part of the country is more concerned about a candidate’s purported belief system than their competency to do the job.
34 CentristNYer // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:33 am
Grizelda // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:32 pm
“… it is about time we started pretending that any irrational thing can be excused by drawing the veil of ‘faith’ over it.”
Asuming you meant ’stop’ pretending, I couldn’t agree with you more.
35 anniemargret // Nov 28, 2009 at 11:34 am
The problem is of course is that what passes off as ‘Christianity’ for the most part today, is a bastardization of the true philosophy of Christ. Which was simply forgiveness, love, peace and helping the poor and the unfortunate. It is now morphed into some quasi-politico-religious thing that is unrecognizable to most people who understand its basic tenets.
But overall biggest problem is the cast of a veneer of supremcy over people who are different. The atheists look down their noses at anyone with belief in a Source or Creator, the Christians (not all though), look down their noses at those that do not subscribe to their version of what and who God is, etc…
And it why it has no place in politics or government. Government must remain secular and politicians need to go back to talking about policy, domestic and international, which affects the daily living of Americans. The more religious talk enters the public domain, the more it has a tendency to corrupt. Kennedy was wise. He understood completely that his religion could have been a source of great mistrust, but was able to steer clear of religious talk during his campaign and his presidency.
We need to get back to that.
36 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:18 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead:
Obama is going to define it for all of us, in his speech next Tuesday.
He’s YOUR hero.
So you go argue it out with him.
37 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:23 pm
anniemargaret:
Oh, brother.
Christianity was politicized long before 1776.
Popes used to raise armies and wage wars, remember?
I’m not just talking about the Crusades. I’m talking about the Thirty Years’ War, which started as a fight between traditional Protestants, Catholics and the then new Protestant sect of Calvinists.
If anything, Christians are LESS politicized now than they were then. Only in a few isolated cases like Northern Ireland, do Christians wage armed struggle over religion anymore.
38 hopitab // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:27 pm
So far, I noticed no one has answered the question about whether they would support Eric Canter. I’m curious. The Dems answered it with Joe Lieberman, though they probably deeply regret it now…
39 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:33 pm
oldgal:
The so-called “Bible Belt” (a region of the country mostly south of the Mason-Dixon Line, from Tennessee to Texas) was always nativist and always believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They didn’t much care for Jews, Mormons (whom they forced to settle west), Hispanics, blacks, or Washington “pointy-headed” liberal intellectuals.
Unfortunately, as moderate and libertarian Republicans fled the GOP under Bush, the GOP got pushed back to this ever-loyal Bible Belt core. And now they predominate. If they don’t like Romney over his Mormonism, that can seal Romney’s fate as a candidate.
40 goag23 // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Why do people have a problem with the Mormon religion? In reading a recent article from TIME magazine, it seems to me that Mormons are the only ones who truly practice their religion any more. I thought it was interesting to find out that they have no paid clergy…..no one to whom they can pay off their sins. Does no one see the downward trend of modern religions? The pastors preach what the congregations want to hear? A preacher is fine compromising the rules if you keep coming and paying his bills, no wonder we have such moral decal in our world today. At least Mormons are true to their convictions, which from what I can see seem to be aligned with Christianity (Christ’s “Christianity”….not what evangelicals have defined as Christianity) far more than anyone else claiming Christianity. According to the article, the Mormons are far more involved in humanitarian efforts than many other religions combined not to mention the the multi millions of dollars of money that Mormons willingly give in forms of food, shelter and recovery efforts throughout the world (to all men and women, not just mormons). Really, they sound like the only real CHRISTIAN denomination out there any more. How bigoted of southern evangelicals to tear down someone else’s beliefs, beliefs that are no doubt bettering this wicked world. They may believe in Joseph Smith seeing angels, but don’t you believe in men being swallowed by whales, and all of the earth’s animals living on an ark. If people won’t vote for Romney as a result of his religion our country is a lot worse off than many may think.
41 peterl // Nov 28, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Lack of information breeds fear. People are concerned that the Mormon church would hold some sort of power over Mitt. If you understood the church and did not hearken to the conspiracy theorists you would not think this.
The church is actually quite non political. It does teach that we should be good citizens and vote for that which is right but only counsels us to vote on extreme moral issues. It even stays away from votes on abortion. The church believes that abortions are rarely but sometimes warranted. But it never ever endorses a candidate. The kinds of things that are taught by the church are limited to things like, staying away from pornography, staying out of debt, delaying sex till after marriage, honoring the law, taking care of our bodies, studying the gospel, being honest, not abusing family, staying away from internet gambling, preparing for a rainy day, providing for family, etc.
Almost everything that the church teaches agrees with what most people think is right.
The Mormon church is not a voodoo reigion but is extremely practical in practice. The leaders are down to earth normal folks trying to do what is right in spite of what others say. The church would NEVER impose on the authority of the president of the United States. If you understood the church leaders, you would trust them more than you trust politicians.
When I was visiting a friend in Utah, he showed me the Mormon Church presidents house. He lives at the end of a culdesack in a very modest house. probably worth about 250K. He probably owns a quarter acre of property. He is known in the neighborhood as Tommy Monson.
42 openhand // Nov 28, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The GOP doesn’t have a problem with Mormons, they are just xenaphobic, they have a problem with everyone else.
Either you are us or you are against us. Love your neighbour on a foreign state visit in Japan? Hell no.
The reality is, and any practical economist will confirm, the world is made up of a wide range of forces, and if you refuse to embrace them, you will alienate yourself. Don’t concern yourself with a bump that might happen in 2010 or 2012, the world has changed and with it, the U.S. Just look at the voting patterns of those under 30, and if you need any confirmation of that just look at who is in ‘your’ whites only house.
43 athensboy // Nov 28, 2009 at 4:27 pm
The Bible Belt, the evangelical movement, the Christian Right, all as one entity, set the rules for the litmus test. They don’t consider Mormonism a “true” Christian religion.Absurd as I see it, but I’m not on that side of the aisle so I don’t care. I see the hard right on a purity mission and I see their tent constantly shrinking. Romney is probably too moderate for this group anyway, so its academic if they would or would not vote for him because of his faith.People are probably right when they say Mittens could beat Obama in 2012, only problem with that is Palin could crush any candidate in the gop primary! Its her nomination to have if she wants it, but I doubt if she wants it because it would be too much work to run for president, like it was too much work to finish her term as governor, and its much more fun to go around on her “poor wittle me” tour.She’s probably pretty smart, but has no intellectual curiosity and speaks in platitudes, which her lemmings eat up. No one is more polarizing than Sarah, in fact she seems to enjoy that role.
44 dk5 // Nov 28, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Carney writes:
“In all likelihood, the exclusion of Mormons from this group and its statement was not necessarily a conscious, affirmative, deliberate decision – adding them might not even have occurred to the participants – Mormons simply exist outside the mental map of most Christians as they contemplate inter-Christian ecumenical cooperation efforts, especially outside Utah.”
I think you hit it spot on!!!
There is one clarification I would like to make, Carney also writes:
“Non-Trinitarian churches such as the…, Mormons, … and so on are, objectively speaking, recently emerged spin-offs from the mainstream, historic Christian tradition,… ”
Mormons are not a spin-off from any church. They claim a restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ (thus the need for seeing angels/i.e. Christ personally restoring his church to the earth) not a reformation from any church on the earth at the time. I suppose some may see them as different from “mainstream, historic Christian tradition” at least from the traditions of the church(es) from about 200AD and later. The LDS church claims their traditions/beliefs come from the time Peter and the other Apostle were on the earth.
a Mormon
45 ThomasJames // Nov 28, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Very few people outside of Mormonism understand the teachings of Joseph Smith. First off, he taught that the Bible is “true” in that it represents a witness about God’s dealings with man. He also taught that the Bible contains transmission errors due to mistranslations, scribal errors, etc. He taught that in many places it is symbolic (such as the Creation in 6 days.) This was back in the 1830s when these things were not yet proven.
Romney’s Mormonism makes Romney VERY objective. Mormonism, as a religious philosophy is very objectively minded. For example, Joseph Smith rejected immateriality and taught in the 1830s that everything in existence is matter – even God himself is composed of matter. Because of this revelation, Mormonism is grounded on “existence” and not “immateriality.”
Therefore, Mormonism rejects “instantaneous creation out of nothing” and the “immaterial Trinity doctrine.” It also rejects God “suspending universal reality” to accomplish a miracle. All things, according to Mormonism, are done within the realm of universal laws. There is no “hocus pocus” maneuvers outside of existence.
Mormonism affirms that Earth has an eternal destiny. Mormonism teaches its adherents that mankind must work to bring about certain realities – they aren’t just going to magically appear.
Why is this important? Romney can believe in a 4.6 billion year old earth and in evolution and still remain true to his religious convictions. This makes Romney very scientifically minded while affirming his faith of strong moral values and a belief in a divine creator. Within Mormonism, these are accommodated and fit within the faith’s creation theology.
Mormonism also teaches that all human souls are valuable to God whether they believe in Jesus Christ presently or not. Therefore, Romney’s Mormonism informs him that all Christian, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or ATHEISTS are LITERALLY his fellow created brothers and sisters and that all of mankind (except a few) have an eternal destiny with God according to the truth that they accepted on earth. Romney would act according to the view that God would one day hold him accountable on how he treated every person (not just Mormons) regardless of their personal religious or political views at a particular time.
Of all the Republican candidates, these views make Romney the most scientifically and rationally minded theist.
As for the slight against Romney’s Mormonism in that he’s not “Christian.” This claim is one of exclusion through a narrow definition of Christianity. It has no real meaning. It’s a point of view only.
Christianity is a tradition of many views. Recently, the Evangelical Christian wing of the party continues to use the political tactic against Romney because they know that many peolple don’t know much about Romney’s religion. By claiming that Romney is NOT Christian, while saying nothing about his views of Jesus Christ, the Evangelical groups mislead their constituents to believe that Romeny is some kind of “non-Christian” who 1) doesn’t recognize the Bible or believe in Jesus Christ. At its worst, it’s a fraud. At it’s best its a white lie.
Many of the Huckabee supporters use this political tactic. Many Evangelical political activists treat the election as if its a community vote for the most Evangelical candidate. This approach will never result in a nomination of a candidate that can win GENERAL elections.
Both Palin and Huckabee have this problem. They appeal to MANY in the Republican party but they’ll never be able to win General elections because of WHO they are and what they have been all of their lives. Sarah and Mike “preach good.” But have they every worked with a diverse group of people to effectuate great change? No. Do they possess the philosophies and views which will appeal to a majority of Americans? No.
A vote for Palin or Huckabee is admirable but will ensure that Obama is our president for another 4 years in 2012.
46 dk5 // Nov 28, 2009 at 5:14 pm
In response to:
“hopitab // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:27 pm
So far, I noticed no one has answered the question about whether they would support Eric Canter.…”
I don’t know Eric Canter but I would have no problem with him being Jew. If anything I suspect if he followed the his tenets of his religion than I would have nothing but respect for him. But, than I’m a Mormon so I suppose this doesn’t hold any significance with some.
I thought I was a conservative GOP. Right now I’m not sure what GOP or Conservative stands for anymore. When a person wont vote for a particular person solely because of his/her religion, I’m not sure I want to be associated with that. Christianity (including Mormons), Islamic, Muslim, Judaism, have basically good tenets that if a person were to follow their beliefs they would be generally good people and searching to better mankind as a whole. This is the kind of person I want to serve me in public office not someone seeking power or money.
47 anniemargret // Nov 28, 2009 at 6:23 pm
sinz: You’re kidding, right? Did Nixon or Kennedy use as much religious association that Karl Rove did during the Bush years? Didn’t Karl himself figure out that the way for them to win was to get the Christians (meaning Southern white evangelical or bible belt Christians that is), are fired up and didn’t we, in fact, the “Christian Right’ during this time, as a force for politicization? Didn’t this cadre of Republicans threaten not to vote unless their demands were met?
This is called quasi-politico-religio-partisan politics. We see it today in the likes of Sarah Palin. They have God, no one else has. They have morality, no one else has. They have the ‘right’ path for America, no one else has.
Of course there have been religious warfare during the centuries and decades and it ever will be….that was not what I was talking about.
The fact that there is this thread, which in and of itself, is a debate whether or not Romney’s Mormonism is a factor in whether or not Americans should vote him says it all. Eisenhower, and not even Reagan or Clinton used religious litmus tests the way they do today. Remember George Bush responding to the question who he admired most? (Jesus). The-who-loves-God-more litmus test is now in full force in American politics, and it is why we will never see a Mormon, American Muslim, Jew or agnostic be President in our time.
48 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 8:48 pm
anniemargaret:
The Religious Right became a potent force in response to the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which was in 1970.
Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic President who was at least nominally pro-life. He was also a Southern Baptist, so Southern Christians didn’t feel too alienated by him on social issues.
But starting with Mondale in 1984, the Dem Party became a staunchly pro-choice party. Every Dem Presidential nominee since has been pro-choice. Pro-life Dems like Casey in Pennsylvania were given short shrift by their own party.
That is what has given the Religious Right their anti-Dem Party political stance. It really has divided the nation quite neatly over the abortion issue.
49 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 28, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Sinz wrote: “Obama is going to define [victory] for all of us, in his speech next Tuesday. He’s YOUR hero. So you go argue it out with him.”
It’s always amusing to see “conservatives” argue for tropes such as “victory” in a war on terror or “small government” during ballooning deficits, only to show themselves intellectually impotent when asked to explain how these things are actually achieved.
50 anniemargret // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:16 pm
sinz: Yes. I agree the abortion issue divided the country. And yes, it appears it is now defined in party ideologies.
But I am also talking about the use of God-talk and religious litmus tests for the presidency. Or as in the case of Romney, immediately rejected out of hand because he is a Mormon. This has more to do with religion being a ‘requirement’ for office (and let’s face it, it has to be Christian, not Catholic) and that is truly a serious problem. There is no question now that there is a definite schism between church and state.
This is Rovian politics and it came after Bush was elected. Let’s say it was exacerbated during the Bush years and is still in play. The GOP is now almost totally run in religious terms. It’s the first question they ask of their candidates… if they are ‘Christian’ enough. Some of my evangelical friends say they won’t be satisfied till our government becomes a “Christian one.”
51 balconesfault // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Sparticus It’s always amusing to see “conservatives” argue for tropes such as “victory” in a war on terror or “small government” during ballooning deficits, only to show themselves intellectually impotent when asked to explain how these things are actually achieved.
Well, Sinz has already stated his case for when he believes the “War on Terror” will be won.
And those conditions are absolutely unrealistic. Particularly when you have a clamor from the right for something like a religiously inspired psychotic turning a gun on men and women who the day before he would have saluted being defined as “terrorism”.
By that definition if terrorism, we have as much chance of eliminating terrorism as we have of eliminating criminal psychoses. None.
52 balconesfault // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Some of my evangelical friends say they won’t be satisfied till our government becomes a “Christian one.”
An AM political talk show host here in Austin last year declared that he would never vote for a non-Christian if there was a Christian in the race. And he still has his job. Go figure.
53 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:34 am
balconesfault wrote: “Well, Sinz has already stated his case for when he believes the “War on Terror” will be won.”
I remember reading that post and wondering why he wasn’t embarrassed to have written something like that.
54 gkg // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:40 am
The rhetoric about Mormons being a cult and not being Christian is tired and worn. If you know a member of the LDS church, and you probably do, you may very well find him or her to be someone who is trying to live a Christ-like life of service and charity who doesn’t really fit the picture that is painted by detractors.
Objective thinkers should be judging Romney by his record rather than his religion. There is no reason to think that the LDS church would have more influence on his politics than it does on Harry Reid who is also a Mormon.
55 Wisdom, Imprinted Agendas, Presidential Politics and more… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:00 am
[...] this guy – this guy and this thread at Free Republic. This in spite of the fact that David Frum thinks the thing is exclusionary for Romney. (Frum’s comment must have been written under the influence of too much Thanksgiving cheer [...]
56 DFL // Nov 30, 2009 at 12:38 pm
If Romney is “political toast”, as Chekote insists, and Huckabee is through due to what happened in Tacoma this weekend, then does Mrs. Palin win the nomination in 2012 by default? Or does Romney, despite what Chekote maintains, become the default nominee?
57 Carney // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I forgot to mention that another key reason I backed Romney was my relatively high confidence that no personal or financial corruption scandal would emerge to harm him or the campaign. This was key after the never-ending parade of mortifying GOP scandal – Abramoff, Cunningham, Foley, Craig, etc. In general, Mormons are so honest they are heavily over-represented in high-temptation jobs such as gambling regulation.
58 dragonlady // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“The GOP is now almost totally run in religious terms.” A correction: evangelicals make up about 25% of GOP voters so while they don’t run the GOP, they are sizable enough that they just can’t be ignored. I think it’s possible for Romney to overcome his Mormonism with the base but as far as litmus tests, I don’t think you’ll see an atheist or Muslim nominated any time soon from either party. That’s not just a GOPism–I think many Americans would be uncomfortable with either in the Oval Office for various reasons (right or wrong).
I don’t agree Romney is completely done in by his previous campaign. In this age of instant media, he can re-tool his image and play up the competence angle. Obama is starting to be perceived as having a competence problem (see Noonan’s latest column)–remains to be seen whether he turns this around. If the economy is still down the tubes in 2012 or if unemployment is still high, Romney, I think, can credibly show he has a fundamental understanding of the economy and how the private sector works. I think independents are pretty practical–they’ll choose someone they think can “fix” things over ideology. If he fails on politics, that’s one thing. If we self-exclude him because he’s a Mormon, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot. These discussions on whether Mormonism is or is not outside of Christianity make my head hurt–I have no problem with his Mormon religion.
From what I’ve seen of Eric Cantor, I would consider supporting him in a run–doesn’t bother me he’s Jewish. Except the House of Rep is often too small a platform to run from.
59 JedMerrill // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Carney, regarding: “True-believing Mormons owe absolute allegiance to a figure who is bound by no limits and whose commands on anything thus cannot be predicted with certainty.”
I don’t know any Mormon who promises such absolute allegiance to anyone. We even struggle to follow Christ sometimes.
I think the perpetuation of the idea that Mormons are somehow sheep to some mortal man or men is very ironic, considering the primary purpose of those mortal men is to help us individually get in touch with God and know his will.
Thomas S. Monson, Gordon B. Hinckley, Joseph Smith himself… Their power to influence members of the Church can be found in these profound, yet simple, verses from the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121: (Pay special attention to verses 36 and 41-46!)
34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distill upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/121
Joseph Smith himself was asked how he was able to govern the Church, and he answered, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”
Thomas S. Monson, current President of the Church, I respect first and foremost because of his example of service to others throughout his life, not his title. When my grandfather’s sister-in-law died last year, the President of this now 14 million member church quietly showed up to comfort the family.
While there is an established hierarchy in the Church that has changed at times to accommodate the rapid growth of the Church throughout the world, it is unfair to call the Church in any way authoritarian or rigid. It is organized, as one would expect the household of God to be. “My house is a house of order,” God said.
60 Mr. Tweet: Your Personal Networking Assistant! // Dec 25, 2009 at 4:04 am
[...] of a 5k race on Thanksgiving Day in Kennewick, Wash. The former vice preside… 2 Likes Romney’s Evangelical Problem 2 Likes WHO | Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 – update 76 2 Likes Brains [...]
61 Eunomia » Romney And The Manhattan Declaration // Feb 5, 2010 at 9:33 pm
[...] Romney And The Manhattan Declaration Posted on November 28th, 2009 by Daniel Larison Digg Stumble Upon Newsvine Slashdot Mixx Diigo Google Delicious Reddit Facebook A declaration intended as the defining statement of conservative Christian principle in the post-2008 political landscape – endorsed by over 150 people over a period of a month – found room for not a single Mormon signatory. Mormons may contribute generously to social conservative causes like the National Organization for Marriage and the campaign against same-sex marriage in California. But when it comes time to define what is Christian and what is not, Mormons are not to be included. I have to think that’s ominous news for the Romney 2012 campaign. ~David Frum [...]
You must log in to post a comment.