For days, one of the top stories on CNN.com was “Romney’s faith pitch recorded behind closed doors.” The story, by Peter Hamby, was about how CNN had obtained a secret recording of Romney discussing his faith with alumni of Bob Jones University. The recording was made by a disgruntled alumnus. What earth-shattering things did he say behind closed doors that we haven’t heard in the mainstream media? Let’s see:
“I get good support from evangelical Christian leadership around the country, you know, despite a difference in religion,” Romney told the audience of evangelicals at the Greenville Hilton.
“I think it was Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention who said we’re not electing a pastor in chief, and so I appreciate that support and just you remember that when you go to vote,” he said with a laugh.
Oh no he didn’t! Oh wait … that’s completely straightforward. What’s more, it sounds exactly like what Romney has been saying since he got in the race. Why the drama? Why make a big fuss about the secret recording? I have no idea. Anyway, Bob Jones University’s former president, Bob Jones III, and Robert Taylor, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, both personally endorsed Romney. Let’s check back with Hamby:
Jones and Taylor endorsed Romney in mid-October — a surprise since Jones had once called Mormonism and Catholicism “cults which call themselves Christian.” The endorsements were seen as a boost to Romney’s efforts to sway conservative Christians skeptical about his faith.
I get what Hamby is saying — it is something of a surprise that leaders at BJU would endorse Romney. But on the other hand, there is nothing surprising at all about people endorsing candidates with whom they have religious disagreements. As a Lutheran, I am pretty darn sure I’ve never voted for someone with whom I’m in complete religious agreement and sometimes it’s not even close. A few weeks ago I read a column in USA TODAY about Romney that ended thusly:
What bothers me are not the allegations of his shifting positions on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, but his acceptance of a political endorsement from someone who trashes his religion.
Okay, so I doubt that many people begrudge Romney for accepting political endorsements from people who are not Mormon or, gasp!, people who actually disagree with Mormonism. But I think a lot of people seem confused that voters might have one set of views about Mormonism and a completely separate set of views about Romney. Let me spell this out. A voter could be Mormon but support, say, Dennis Kucinich for President. A voter could think Mormonism was the most false religion ever and be the chair of the Alabama Republicans for Romney campaign. A Methodist voter could generally like Mormons and Mormonism but not like Romney. I could go on but the point seems so obvious.
This failure to understand the extremely common situation of a voter opposing a candidate’s religion while supporting a candidate plagues much coverage of the Romney campaign. Now don’t get me wrong: many voters have indicated they’d be less likely to vote for a candidate who is Mormon. But it’s nowhere near a majority. Even among white evangelicals, only about one-third express problems with voting for a Mormon candidate.
The Associated Press’ Philip Elliott had a report on a related issue that was well-written and interesting. At a recent New Hampshire house party, Romney said his advisers have recommended against his giving a speech about his religious views and how they might affect his presidency. And yet …:
During the house party, Romney returned to a familiar speech about his family to talk about his faith’s broad beliefs.
“The values of my faith flow from the Judeo-Christian heritage that we probably all share in this room, which are values of believing in God, in the case of those that follow the Christian line of that philosophy, I believe Jesus Christ is my savior. I believe in the Bible. I believe that liberty is a gift of God and not of government. I believe in serving other people, that it’s part of a religious heritage.”
Interesting. Well, we haven’t seen the end of this story but let’s hope we’ll see improved coverage. Particularly as it relates to the ability of voters to support candidates whose religious views they disagree with.
 | Posted at 1:25 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (36) |
November 13, 2007, at 2:28 am
I think what sets Mormonism apart in people’s minds is the parallel with Islam: a man comes along with a new book devised in uncertain circumstances, the contents of which purport to improve on what was believed before. The subsuming of prior beliefs in Islam contrasts with its historic hostility to the prior faith communities; the very syncretism of Mormonism is regarded (IMHO justly) as inimical to Christianity.
Mormonism is not unique: its nearest analogue is not popular with the majority for similar reasons. A Mormon candidate is therefore at a distinct disadvantage when considered in the round by typical voters in the US.
November 13, 2007, at 4:28 am
What are we talking about here?
Freedom OF religion? Or freedom FROM religion? What does the Constitution say? We’ve all read it: “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.â€
An establishment. That is the separation that must be kept. The Constitution does not separate religion as such from public or private life. Many of the Founding Fathers were reportedly not churchgoers but they were Deists. They believed in G-d. They intended that Americans would always have the right to worship in their own ways, and they embodied that right in the First Amendment.
Prohibiting all religious expression in public events is therefore illegal. That includes non-sectarian prayer, the pledge of allegiance, displaying the Ten Commandments, etc. Prohibiting those expressions is just as illegal as it would be to pass a resolution declaring the United States to be a Christian country, or a Muslim country, or a Jewish country. No atheist should be punished for abstaining, and no believer should be prevented from praying.
November 13, 2007, at 5:56 am
I think the author should wonder about Kennedy. People in the 60’s were not all that crazy about Catholics. I am sure their were many who spend time trashing Roman Catholism who turned around and supported Kennedy. Should Kennedy not accepted support from those who trashed his religion?
November 13, 2007, at 8:57 am
“What bothers me are not the allegations of his shifting positions on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, but his acceptance of a political endorsement from someone who trashes his religion.”
The implication of this statement is that differences in religious expression are sufficient to allow a serious rift to develop between two otherwise compatible parties. Essentially the writer says ‘if you don’t like me, I don’t like you’. That is an awfully impractical way to go about living one’s life. In the LDS view, the writer just needs a little more educating. We do not expect everyone to agree with us. What we want is for others to get accurate information and then they can make up their minds. We have found understanding one another breeds respect. It is all the misinformation that breeds the disrespect.
November 13, 2007, at 9:05 am
Dido’s comment above is inaccurate from an LDS perspective. What divides Mormons from historical Christianity is that we are not Trinitarians and they are. One observer recently compared us to fourth Abrahamic or covenant people. That is a misperception. We are Christian in the mold of the first Christians. Historical Christianity took a turn in the fourth century away from original Christianity with the adoption of the Nicene Creed — not to get too doctrinaire.
November 13, 2007, at 9:34 am
Good post, Mollie. I thoroughly enjoyed reading a featured story in last week’s Time magazine about Romney’s efforts to secure a health plan for Massachusetts when he was governor. A lengthy article, and there wasn’t a single mention of his religion.
I’d never argue that there’s no journalistic relevance to a candidate’s faith. But I honestly don’t understand why so many writers can’t seem to mention Romney without referring to his Mormonism. They don’t do the same with Clinton’s Methodism (although, by various accounts, her faith has been more than window dressing in her life), Obama’s UCCism (despite the potentially controversial nature of his congregation’s Afrocentrism) or Giuliani’s Catholicism. In the case of the other candidates (with the possible exception of Huckabee), reporters usually bring up the religious affiliation only when it is reasonably pertinent to the story. Not so with Romney, and thus the recent article in Time was a pleasure to read for what it didn’t contain.
As far as I’ve been able to find out, there were no instances during Romney’s governorship where his religion got in the way of his leadership. We have Mormon senators, members of the House and many politicians on the state level who serve with distinction (or not) — and I’m not aware of any of them who have run for re-election where the relationship between their faith and their duties in office became an issue. It’s time for the media to put Romney’s Mormonism in proper perspective.
November 13, 2007, at 9:43 am
AmaniS is certainly correct that “People in the 60’s were not all that crazy about Catholics.” In fact, that’s an understatement.
Articles in the fledgling Christianity Today painted grim scenarios of a Catholic Presidency, claiming that Kennedy’s election was a threat to the “American way of life.” Stanley Lowell wrote an article for CT claiming that if Catholics became a majority in the U.S., “Protestants would be treated with snide amusement and official contempt. They would be reduced to second-class citizens and treated as damned souls.”
Interestingly, Lowell was part of a group called Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (POAU). During Kennedy’s campaign, evangelical Christians were strongly in favor of strict separation of church and state because they feared a Catholic presidency and a Catholic majority.
How times have changed!
November 13, 2007, at 9:49 am
Eric et al. -
Do you think the press is preoccupied with Romney’s Mormonism simply because he’s the first serious Mormon presidential candidate? Does his candidacy simply create an opportunity for a public discussion of Mormonism, regardless of whether it’s relevant to his campaign or his qualifications?
November 13, 2007, at 11:12 am
Sadly, the media sometimes resembles sharks at a feeding frenzy. Once they grab hold of an idea they won’t let go no matter what. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels also comes to mind since the media often ignores the important to focus on the trivial.
November 13, 2007, at 11:17 am
What’s odd about the Republican primary jockeying is that many evangelical power brokers are apparently ready to accept a Roman Catholic in very poor standing by supporting Rudy! rather than accept Romney b/c of his Mormonism. Or in order to avoid endorsing Rudy! or Romney, they have been spreading their endorsements all over the place with the other candidates who don’t have the poll numbers.
I have heard of any Catholic political power brokers saying we might need to compromise to beat Hillary or that Rudy! is fine or Romney is not okay.
November 13, 2007, at 12:14 pm
And POAU is Barry Lynn’s organization, which has dropped the “Protestants and Other…” from its name. I will refrain from adding my speculation on why.
November 13, 2007, at 2:32 pm
A little tangential, but I hope close enough to topic to be interesting: I’ve read concern among non-LDS Christians that a Romney presidency would somehow accelerate LDS conversions by bestowing some kind of legitmacy upon our beliefs.
FWIW, I’ve heard concerns among LDS members that a Romney presidency would *retard* conversions, especially outside the U.S. because people would suspect some hidden connection between the missionaries and the U.S. government. This seems reasonable to me because during my LDS mission in Argentina in the 1970’s, I was accused of being a CIA front several times — and that was with a non-LDS U.S. President. At least, they might tie any disagreements with Romeny’s presidential actions to his belief in the LDS doctrines. Also, given that many/most U.S. Presidents end their service at or below 50% approval ratings in this country, Romney’s LDS affiliation could hinder the Church’s growth here also.
November 13, 2007, at 3:41 pm
No matter what, win-lose-draw on Romney, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is absolutely relishing in all the media fireworks. Here’s a great example:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2007/11/01/qa-elder-m-russell-ballard-on-the-mormon-way.html
When would the great grandson of Hyrum Smith (brother of Joseph Smith who was murdered with Joseph in 1844 in the Carthage, Illinois jail by a mob) been invited for such a terrificly positive interview in a popular national news magazine unless it had been for Romney’s candidacy? The Church is basking in the limelight, not because of Romney, but because of all the frenzy roused by evangelical anti-Mormons.
L.D.S. missionaries will tell you that, while encouraged to do so most every week, many members are a little reticent about sharing with nonmembers. All this media exposure is causing nonmembers to be more curious, and they are the ones asking the questions now. I’ve been astonished, even where I live … in the Bible Belt.
Most members don’t discuss politics between each other. I’ve heard only one person in my Ward, not anywhere near the church building. He’s actually on a local re-election committee. Most people aren’t going to tell others who they’re going to vote for because they know it’s their own private matter. I’ve been a member since 1955, & have never once heard the name of a political candidate mentioned in any meeting. I couldn’t tell you who might be a Republican or Democrat in my congregation. What we HAVE clearly recognized are the benefits that have come from this election campaign. And, I haven’t heard Romney marketing his religion from the podium. I doubt that it ever entered his mind that it might be such a big deal here in the Bible Belt. Though he’s an educated person, he’s never lived here, so how could he? I’m sure, just like any other candidate (Clinton, Nixon, Kennedy, Roosevelt, etc.) feels he’d like to also enjoy his private life.
November 13, 2007, at 7:20 pm
One thing that makes the endorsement from Bob Jones III interesting is that he privately believes Romney is going to hell. No question about it. (The funny thing is, he almost certainly thinks the same thing about Giuliani.) I can’t remember BJ III endorsing anybody but Protestants in the past. Who could have imagined such an endorsement even a decade or two ago? BJ III: A separatist in faith but a pragmatist in politics.
November 13, 2007, at 7:20 pm
To a certain extent. There was some attention paid to Joe Lieberman’s Judaism when he was the vice presidential candidate, and to Jimmy Carter’s evangelicalism, so I agree that there’s a novelty factor involved. And although they might not understand why it’s so, many journalists are aware of the antipathy of some evangelical leaders toward Mormonism, so they see a potential conflict, and conflicts make news.
Others have already addressed that a bit. My hopeful answer would be yes, but in real life it cuts both ways. Some journalists have written about the religion itself, but not very many have got it right. They tend to focus on some of the more sensational aspects of the religion, such as its history of polygamy. Or they seem to think that our lifestyle is so incredibly strict, when in reality we are far from the only Christians, for example, who teach that we should avoid alcohol, tobacco and sex outside of marriage. Or they take some half-truths spoken by the church’s critics (e.g., Mormons believe Satan is Jesus’ brother) and accept them at face value. And I have yet to see a newspaper article written by someone who has actually attended an LDS worship service and explained how it compares with those of other denominations, or how the daily life of a Mormon compares with the daily life of a committed evangelical.
Despite those complaints, there’s been some good coverage too. I don’t want to sound like a sourpuss. Indeed, many of the stereotypes of Mormons that show up in the media are positive.
November 13, 2007, at 8:02 pm
It was actually Baptist Richard Land who suggested just two weeks ago the thought that Latter-day Saints are a fourth Abrahamic religion. There will be some LDS scholars who would like to see that happen, but it won’t. At least two members of the First Presidency and seven Apostles don’t want us to be “Different, but Christian”. Instead, we are “Christian, but different.” See my blog for evidence of it: http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com
I react strongly against comparisons to Islam. We are not an offshoot from Judaism and Christianity and totally different from them and inimical to them, as is Islam. We are at our most basic a restoration of Christianity, really another manifestation of the Judeo-Christian heritage, and are truest to our origins by being closest to Christianity.
Islam’s founder replaced and completely superceded Abraham and Jesus as past prophets, and gave a new message never to be superceded. Joseph Smith testified of Christ, whitnessed to Him as the unique Son of God and only Savior, and encouraged everyone to use Christ as their pattern. Joseph’s words re-inforced the Savior’s message, and will never supercede Him.
I also react against the thought of looking back in 1400 years at the history of relations between other Christians and LDS Christians, and would would be very saddened to have it look like the history of warfare and bloodshed between Christianity and Islam (including today, when Christians are persecuted in every majority-Moslem country). If there is a clash of civilizations (and I think it is nearly certain), the Latter-day Saints will be there with our Christian and Jewish neighbors and friends.
Thanks much,Steve St.Clair
November 13, 2007, at 8:27 pm
No particular offence intended to my LDS brothers: I write both about the public perception and aspects of it that I agree with. The paradigm of restoration and recovery of the original true faith has been tried before, again and again and again. Islam is just one of the more spectacularly successful examples. Mormonism is a latter-day, quite successful and indeed growing example.
Again, all IMHO. I could state as a Catholic that there is no other Church than the one Christ founded and that has persisted through the vicissitudes of history and human failure. It’s an alternative paradigm: agree or disagree if you wish.
I suggest that as far as Romney is concerned, this gut reaction against yet another example of the former paradigm will count against his chances. For all I know, he might make the best president ever.
November 13, 2007, at 9:50 pm
Other than differences in doctrine, any other Christian would feel quite comfortable at our worship services. In fact, someone said we attract more Evangelical and Catholic converts than any other people. We are conservative maybe even classical in our ways.
If I might add one more thing. We don’t take offense when others disagree with us. It is only natural. Who would say he knowingly attends a false church. Believing in one’s theology is human nature. When they think otherwise they look elsewhere.
November 13, 2007, at 10:17 pm
Other than differences in doctrine
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play”?
Seriously, JLF. How much do you know about others who call themselves Christian?
When I attended an Episcopalian eucharist and baptism, I was glad to see a child baptised into the One Body of Christ, the Church. The vast majority of Christians insist that baptism conform to a Trinitarian formula and what doesn’t, isn’t.
However, it made me distinctly (and naturally) uncomfortable that a ceremony was then performed very similar to the RC Mass but with a different understanding of the similar words used and by a woman, which the RC cannot ordain.
Are we supposed to be “comfortable” with other than what we perceive to be the truth? Perhaps: but that is the syncretism I pointed to in my first comment.
November 13, 2007, at 11:09 pm
Mormonism raises a good example to question what is Christianity? Mormons call themselves “Christian,” but are they really?
Harkening back to the Founding era, unitarians likewise understood themselves to be Christian; but were they? They certainly had quite a rich history of figures. Jefferson, Franklin and John Adams clearly understood themselves to be “unitarian” by name. And Washington and Madison were probably theological unitarians as well. Only Adams was formally associated with a Unitarian Church.
Back then, unitarians were more religious than the Unitarian Universalists tend to be today. They were devout theists who believed in an active personal God. Some unitarians could be quite biblical, believing the entire Bible the Word of God — but Jesus was not God, rather a great human moral teacher (Socinian) or perhaps a divine being created by but subordinate to the Father (Arian). Biblical Unitarians included Chief Justice John Marshall, Joseph Story and Jared Sparks, and from the earlier generation, Milton and Newton. Other unitarians — like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin and perhaps Madison and Washington — were rationalists who believed God primarily revealed Himself through Nature and only partially inspired the Bible, leaving man’s reason the ultimate arbiter of Truth. In this regard, they followed Joseph Priestly, a British Whig and the co-discoverer of Oxygen.
John Locke was also likely a unitarian of the Arian variety. But, scholars disagree on just how “biblical” his beliefs were.
These “unitarians” understood themselves to be true Christians. But given they rejected the Nicene Creed, i.e., the hallmark of Christian orthodoxy, whether they can truly be called Christians is debatable. At best, they were Christian heretics. And, as I’ve discovered, this Christian heresy was key to the political theology of American Founding thought.
November 14, 2007, at 1:19 am
dido
As I said above, aside from doctrine, I think you would feel comfortable. Mormons are not trinitarians. As such we reject the Nicene Creed as a man made construct. We also believe in an open scriptural canon. We are Christians in the mold of the first Christians. We believe that historical Christianity moved away from Christ’s original teachings. The Nicene Creed is an example. Harper’s Bible Dictionary says there is no New Testament support the for the Trinitarian concept. So we are not way out on a limb on this thing. Your comment “The vast majority of Christians insist that baptism conform to a Trinitarian formula and what doesn’t, isn’t” supports our contention that it is man made. Sorry to get doctrinal here, but I just thought I should respond a bit more completely about our differences given you seemed to want to go down that road.
Jon
I am not sure how you intended to tie Mormons in with Unitarians. There is no connection that I see. We believe the bible to be the word of God, in so far as it is translated correctly. In fact the Book of Mormon was intended to support the bible and testify that Jesus is the Christ. We believe our theology was restored by God to a real live prophet just because historical Christianity had gone so far astray over the centuries. It is not just made up by a bunch of people getting together to express themselves in a new way. We even provide a method to test us to see if what we say is true that does not require another humans involvement. So I fail to see any connection. Our message says: don’t just take our word for it, test what we claim and find out for yourself.
November 14, 2007, at 1:43 am
I’m a believing Mormon who holds a doctorate in Islamic studies and Arabic and who teaches that subject at the university level, and I see very large and significant differences between Islam and Mormonism. The two faiths are not nearly as similar as some critics want others to believe, and Mormons are divided from Muslims by the same doctrine that fundamentally separates other Christians from Muslims — namely, belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the divine, incarnate, redeeming Son of God.
November 14, 2007, at 8:44 am
Harper’s Bible Dictionary says there is no New Testament support the for the Trinitarian concept
The Catholic Church (for example) isn’t bound by the content of that fine reference. Put a bunch of beliefs together in a reference without regard to who accepts them: that’s syn-cret-ism (“together-belief-idea”).
You know what? Some people don’t like it.
I’m not saying this is necessarily true of Romney. The worry is that the syncretist has no fixed convictions.
I never said Islam and Mormonism have beliefs in common. Have another look at my first coment and remember I’m also talking about the public perception.
November 14, 2007, at 8:50 am
Your comment “The vast majority of Christians insist that baptism conform to a Trinitarian formula and what doesn’t, isn’t†supports our contention that it is man made.
No it doesn’t, it has always been taught by the Church that Christ founded.
For those who can’t accept that, the NT has Jesus talking about his Father and about the Holy Spirit. Two other angels, or something? Perhaps. But not to most Christians.
November 14, 2007, at 9:21 am
JLF, I think Jon was trying to say that most people perceive the founding fathers to be Christian—due to that little “In God We Trust” comment. However, looking deeper into their belief system, it is not perceived as the definition of “Christian” today. He is drawing ties to Mormonism and the Founding Fathers, and people don’t protest their beliefs—much. I don’t mind being in that boat.
I am truly saddened by the allowance of bigotry allowed towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when if you had said the same thing about those of Jewish faith or towards any race or sexual orientation you could lose your job or worse—as seen modeled multiples times this year by a few public figures. If we are going to limit hate speech, shouldn’t it be across the board?
November 14, 2007, at 9:44 am
TR gets what I was saying exactly.
November 14, 2007, at 11:14 am
I went to a family re-union this past summer and there I had the opportunity to discuss, briefly, politics with a cousin I respect immensely. But, given I am Republican and he is a Democrat, I challenged liberal thinking in a way I thought would at least provoke some interest in discussing things we might have in common. I am sorry to say that even bringing these things up provoked his anger. My cousin essentially left the conversation before we even got into it. I like discussing ideas. I like finding common ground where we can. But I also learn a lot about what I really believe when I am challenged. It becomes more about what I learn about me than it is about me convincing someone else. So it is with religion. I appreciate the opportunity GetReligion.org has provided us here. So far, no one has left the conversation before it ever got started because they were talking with a Mormon. I appreciate that.
November 14, 2007, at 11:52 am
Can I say one more thing here? There are issues we LDS have discussed internally for years. Adult conversations are much different than those of youthful members. Even newer members such as converts have differing ideas than those of the DNA Mormons. DNA Mormons are those families, like mine, who have been members for generations. One branch of my family joined the church in the 1840’s. My earliest views were shaped in large part by my grandparents experiences of open hostility and real persecution. We call them the siege Mormons. But recent converts bring with them new ideas about how the world works and who our fellows are. It no longer is OK to hate and fear the outsiders. The outsiders have become us. Our doctrine has not fundamentally changed but our understanding of it has. How we interpret it has changed. Take homosexuality for example. We still reject it as a counterfeit relationship but accept that many who feel attracted to the same sex are honest about their feelings. We are required by God to love and accept all. But our doctrine of no sex outside of marriage requires homosexuals to abstain from sexual relationships. Our belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and is intended to be solemnized in a temple forbids same sex couples from marrying. But our understanding does not require us to reject our homosexual members from full fellowship and even participation as priesthood holders or holding jobs in the church such as teacher or in administrative positions. I think you will find that doctrinaire positions on many things have eased a bit. We are a missionary church and as such converts bring a different understanding and approach to the Gospel. If there is an enemy it is our weakness as human beings. It isn’t our fellow believers.
November 14, 2007, at 2:15 pm
May I just say as a Latter Day Saint that this was the most satisfying, well thought out, and fair discussion on this subject that I have read in a long time. Thank you all for your thought provoking and intelligent discussion here.
November 15, 2007, at 12:20 am
Thank you for your wonderful discussions. I wish there were more open minded people out across the country that would give Mitt Romney a chance he is the best thing to come along
in years . Our country needs a President with personal strengths and integrity to be able to deal with all the challenges which this nation is facing and will face in the future. Do you want a President that is so guarded; that they are afraid to talk one on one with press? Hilary Clinton has to stick her finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before she even gives a simple answer. She has to have hrs of practice before she goes on for her performances. She is a empty shell, Heaven help us if she becomes President.
November 15, 2007, at 1:56 am
I’ve had another read through what was written here by members of the CLDS.
I don’t want to single you out to give you offence, JLF, but if I took you at your word I would be convinced that Mormonism does not constitute a coherent set of beliefs or practices.
You tried to tell me several times that I would be “comfortable” with your worship services. If I were catatonic, maybe, or heavily sedated. But otherwise, I can assure you, absolutely not.
The mindset! Just so long as we’re all worshipping, it doesn’t matter whom, or Whom, or what, or how, or why.
If I thought Romney would bring that (lack of) approach to policy, I would rather vote for (God help us) Hilary.
The substantial issue that R. has apparently flip-flopped on is abortion. That’s very serious, in my view. Though if he’s prepared to stick with his pro-life position, he’ll get my papist vote a damn sight faster than Giuliani will.
November 15, 2007, at 4:35 am
Dido - This post of yours would cause one to question if you understand what “coherent” is (or isn’t?) Or if you really are already somehow “catatonic” or “heavily sedated.”
Your papist (?) vote for Hilary would be probably be just fine with most Romney supporters. There are just certain folks Romney doesn’t need on his side.
PS What is CLDS?
November 15, 2007, at 7:45 am
Dido
OK. You don’t have to feel comfortable visiting one of our services if you don’t want to.
As far as Romney goes, I don’t know whether I will vote for him either. I am still not sure whether we want a manager-in-chief or a leader-in-chief. I know we don’t want a pastor-in-chief regardless of affiliation. Once the person gets in the White House we will see plenty of stuff most of us would like not to see about the man and his family. I especially don’t want to have my religion held up to ridicule like we too often see now. It is really hard for me not to sink to the level of the profaners and skewer them. As I think more about it, we need a leader more than we need a manager. World class managers are a dime a dozen if you are the president. Even the Democrats can find some if they look hard enough. So the question becomes which guy has the best leader qualities. Being a good manager is nice too, but you can hire that out. I think we all want someone who believes in God and seeks guidance through daily prayer. I don’t care if he genuflects afterwards or not. Anyway, that is what this old country boy thinks. Today anyway.
November 15, 2007, at 7:56 am
Dido
I don’t have any heart burn with papists. In fact there is a long history of Catholics and Mormons getting along quite well out here in the west. And it doesn’t even bother me that you are wrong and just won’t admit it. I attribute that to being Irish. Although my Italian Catholic son-in-law is like that too.
November 15, 2007, at 9:21 am
JLF,
Doctrine is about truth. If doctrine doesn’t matter, how can you call someone wrong?
By all means do so. But be consistent: I’d be a lot more comfortable with your worship service if it was clear to me you thought doctrine mattered. It helps too if it’s the same doctrine as before.
I don’t care what your nationality or race is. It’s not really relevant to the discussion, though your happy-clappy mask slipped a little when you brought it up.
November 15, 2007, at 10:40 am
Okay, this conversation is starting to veer too far off of the stated purpose of this blog — which is to discuss media coverage of religion, not religion itself. I’m going to delete all future comments that are off topic.
Thanks, though, for an enlightening discussion.