While the basic tenets of Mormonism can be criticized, they are not key to the election, any more than Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are Southern Baptists.
We all know there's quite a row about Bush's faith, which, theologically, is the same as Clinton's and Obama's. Whatever frailties Romney's theology has, isn't he, in America, free to believe in the god of his choice
re: Some Mormons Worry as Faith Comes Under Scrutiny
Mitt Romney's Presidential Rivals Have Used His Mormon Faith for Negative Campaigning
5 comments:
I don't remember if I've said this here before, but I would probably not vote for an Evangelical candidate who didn't believe in Evolution. Sure, that issue is important to me, but also it's indicative of they're not accepting a whole host of basic sciences- and that's troubling to me in a President.
Likewise, any candidate who rejects basic anthropology, arguing that Native Americans were actually Israelites who were wiped out thousands of years ago, or who accepts such an obvious hoaxter as Joseph Smith- that's troubling to me too. It indicates that he will not reject certain aspects of studies if they don't conform with his preconcieved notions, and that he's easily duped, unable to recognize obvious hoaxes. That's just scary in a President. Any Mormon candidate who rejected the premise that Native Americans were Israelites, and rejected that there were actually gold tablets that Smith saw- that guy, I wouldn't have a problem voting for. But I want to hear that from him first.
A key phrase in your response, "But I want to hear that from him first."
John Kennedy said he was Catholic, but, in his lifestyle, who could tell? His many and torrid affairs speak oodles that he had no faith at all. The level of belief or impact of that belief is not based on the tenets of his claimed church. It is a place to start a discussion, but not the finish.
I think that Mitt Romney as a Mormon is fine in the office of President as he seems to hold to the same values of me (pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and public religious freedom) and can be trusted to stand by those values in office. Maybe he wouldn't be as good for the Gospel as other candidates, like a baptist ministry (Mike Huckabee) or a conservative Baptist (Fred Thompson). The key is who is he running against and what their values are. He would likely be running against Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama are pro-choice, support the homosexual agenda, and I believe would support further secularization of the public sphere. To me there is little doubt who would be best in office.
For every candidate, it is about values, period. Which values, of course, depends on the voters values. Secondly, whether we believe the candidate has both the inclination and capacity to vote those values.
Rudy G., for example, claims to be prolife, and has the capacity to vote that way (he's a leader), but not the inclination. Prolife voters can count him out, at least as far as that issue is concerned.
Antiwar people are looking at Hillary and Obama askig that question. Both claim the inclination to leave Iraq, and both seem passionate in this regard, but who, after politics and compromising are done, who can carry it off?
As far as the homosexual agenda, one question is what will or could come up in the next 4-8 years that a president could impact? I honestly don't know, and should find out. In other words, would it make a difference in the daily operation of the office if the president is pro- or anti-homosexual agenda?
In the case of pro-life concerns, I think Congress is the greater issue, though the Supreme Court is obviously a matter that needs review. While I hardly want a Christian voting for or against the constitutionality of something based only only a biblical view, but to truly honor the Constitution. In the law is Constitution carries a law that we don't like as per our values, then an Amendment needs to be put through, and that's mostly a congressional question.
Yes. You get a Republican candidate for office who can convince me that he would actually make abortion illegal, and I'll switch parties for the first time and vote for him. I'd be impressed if I believed a Republican would even try.
Also, David, look at the issues more closely. Obama for one, doesn't support the "homosexual agenda"- he is in favor of civil unions, not marriage. Pretty much the situation we had in the first few centuries of Christianity, before Constantine screwed it all up. Obama is also not only against the war, but strongly against the death penalty. He's got most of the killing covered- he's just weak on the abortion part.
Post a Comment