Mitt Romney's victory in the Iowa Republican caucus is not, by itself, very significant. But it does show Romney's strength among conservative activists, and it confirms that his candidacy cannot be dismissed. Many analysts across the political spectrum believe that Romney won' t have a chance to be a serious contender until he addresses the Mormon issue. Many political strategists have suggested that Romney make a move similar to the one that John F. Kennedy made when he went before the Baptists and essentially told them that his Catholicism would have no bearing whatsoever on his decisions as president. So should Romney make a similar declaration?
No. What Kennedy did was perhaps politically necessary to diffuse anti-Catholic prejudice. Yet this is not the correct meaning of separation of church and state, which as the founders envisioned it would merely forbid the establishment of a national church or official theological orthodoxy. (In fact the founders had no problem with states having their own established churches, and several of them did.) Nowhere did Washington, Adams, Madison or even Jefferson (perhaps the least devout of the founders) claim that presidents could not be influenced by their own religious convictions. They would rightly have recognized this as absurd. Of course what was absurd for the founders is not necessarily absurd in the Kennedy household. If President John F. Kennedy knew how to govern without his Catholicism, Senator Ted Kennedy's moral values are so private that he refuses to impose them even on himself!
Leaving aside our peculiar Camelot crew, most people cannot separate their religious beliefs from who they are. Romney has a wonderful opportunity to make an important distinction. The distinction is between Mormon theology and Mormon morality. Theology is the province of revelation, and it is in the nature of revelation to be outside the province of rational debate. I cannot, for example, give you reasons why I believe in the Trinity. Morality, however, may derive from religion but it is entirely defensible in terms of reason. I don't need to appeal to the Book of Daniel or Jonah in the belly of the whale in order to convince you why government policy should protect human life or support the family as the institution for raising the next generation. Moral argument is at the core of what democratic debate and democratically-approved legislation is all about, as the debates over slavery and the civil rights movement clearly show.
Mormon theology is, at least for us non-Mormons, very strange. But Mormon morality is not strange at all. In fact, it is generally the same morality espoused by traditional Christianity and also by traditional Judaism, traditional Islam, and traditional Hinduism. Mormons as a group are wonderful people: creatively entrepreneurial, thoroughly devoted to their families, law-abiding and decent. They are, in fact, exemplary Republicans and conservatives. Romney should argue that his Mormon theology is a private belief but Mormon ethics and values are precisely those traditional American principles that built this country and now need to be revived.
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 8)
91. Couple of corrections to your misstatements:
No, I didn't "forget" to mention anything. The list was a response to another poster's claim that the "Rethuglys" as he/she/it so politely refers to them, are far behind the Democrats in terms of equality. No "list" of "first Democrats" was necessary, because the question wasn't ABOUT "Democrat firsts." A poster claimed that the Republicans HAD no such "firsts." I proved him/her/it wrong. The Democratic "firsts" weren't in question, so, again...no list was necessary, or "forgotten."
Oh, but I DID forget to mention that the first black Secretary of State? Yes, that would be Colin Powell, a Republican. Shame to forget him. Probably because, you know, it's NOT A BIG DEAL, and this was a list of "firsts" to demonstrate that the Republicans have had them going back nearly 150 years.
V-If I misinterpreted your post, I apologize, however, the thrust of the post you responded to is correct. Modern Republicans and/or conservatives are a far more homogenous crowd and far less inclusive than are modern Democrats and/or liberals. My point, which you seem to have overlooked for one reason or another, was that when it comes to being the vanguard of societal evolution, the Democrats, beginning with the era of FDR and continuing through today, far outpace their colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
I do find it humorous how you attempt to chastize me for allegedly comparing modern liberalism to liberalism of centuries past, which I did not, while you apparently are quite comfortable equating the modern Republican party with its archaic counterpart.
And, to equate 19th and early 20th century "Liberalism" (which was concerned with mostly ECONOMIC liberalism, not social or religious liberalism) to late 20th/early 21st century "liberalism" is absurd. BOTH the Republican Party AND the Democratic party, compared to TODAY, were WILDLY conservative until the 1960's. John F. Kennedy....a "liberal"...was MORE conservative than ANY of the current REPUBLICAN candidates!
You make my point for me....everything is relative, and RELATIVE to the Democrats of the past, the Republican party used to be the repository of American liberalism....regardless of whether it was economic religious or social.
So, no....any conclusions drawn on the "idea" that the Republican party of the late 19th/early 20th century was a "bastion of liberalism"
V -Again, RELATIVE to the Democratic party of that era, it certainly was.
as it is understood TODAY are therefore invalid.
V -As understood by whom....people who know the actual definition of the term or those who allow the demagogues of the right tell them what to think?
As for "that sentiment is taken for granted among modern Democrats" is yet another broad, sweeping generalization that cannot be proven.
V -Bob Dole would disagree with you here and so do I.
There are PLENTY of Democrats (many in the South) who would GLADLY discriminate against minorities, if the cultural attitudes were different. And few "discriminating Republicans"
V -While I grant you that many areas in the South remain a cultural backwater RELATIVE to other regions of the country, and you may have some ancient boll weevils hiding in some patches of kudzu vine still fighting the Civil War, most of the rest of the Southerners who hold those beliefs have long since migrated to the Republican party.
It's simply intellectually dishonest to paint ALL Republicans as backwater racist uneducated zealots, and ALL Democrats as enlightened egalitarian perfected angels of humanity. Sorry.
V -What's just PLAIN dishonest is to suggest that I did anything of the sort.
Once again, too many people use the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" when they really mean "conservative" and "liberal".
BTW, as for your contention that JFK was far more conservative than any of the current crop of Republican supplicants for the presidency, I concede that he might have been politically found roughly somewhere between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (prior to the latter becoming a "microwave" conservative), but somehow, I just can't envision ol' Jack advocating the nuking of Mecca.
Ventrue at 6:23PM on Aug 15th 2007
92. It amazes me how derisive this one issue can be. People need to look past the labels and focus on something of substance. Will this person do the job that needs to get done? Will this person put the good of the American people ahead of their own personal greed? Can this candidate reunite a fractured governmental system? What image will this candidate project upon the international stage?
I was raised in a Mormon household. As I grew up my own personal choices led me away from the faith and while this most definitely saddened my faithful parents, THEY ALLOWED ME TO MAKE MY CHOICES. At times other members of the LDS church have contacted me, asked me if there was anything they could do for me, and they have accepted my polite "no", without hounding me, or criticizing me, or degrading me. This is exactly the same tollerant attitude that Mitt Romney has expressed when he states that HIS beliefs are for HIM, and not necessarily for everyone else, and while they may influence his decisions, they are not the sole basis of his decisions (unlike some Christians who refuse to think outside their beliefs, and will only take action that furthers their beliefs).
As I've matured I've re-examined the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the people who hold these beliefs. Almost universally the Mormon people I've met have been morally and ethically strong, and believe that the people around them should strive to achieve those standards (NOT that people should be forced to uphold these standards). Mormons believe in the idea of "free will". I have met individual Mormons who hold a "holier than thou" attitude and who degrade "nonbelievers" but this is evident in all religions, and is not indicative of church doctrine. So we have a church who's members espouse freedom of thought and action as long as you're willing to accept consequence, and strong moral and ethical behavior - sounds like a good start for a presidential candidate.
The Mormons I've met believe in service to their fellow man, humility, chairity, self sufficiency, success through hard work, education, a strong social network, and strength through unity. All good Christain values that should be welcome in any leader of our nation.
I've traveled to many places, and I've met White Mormons, Black Mormons, Hispanic Mormons, Asian Mormons, the list could continue. The church continues to expand in areas outside of White America - so the idea of this church espousing racist beliefs is absurd.
As to the continued questions regarding polygamy - check the facts and educate yourselves before you judge; YES, members of the Mormon church did practice polygamy - well over 100 years ago. Current Latter Day Saint doctrine states clearly that polygamy is not to be condoned or practiced. Those splinter sects that continue to practice polygamy are not associated with the main body of the church.
So, in conclusion; I would not vote for or against Mitt Romney simply "because he's a Mormon" (which would be like voting for any candidate simply because they're Republican, or Democrat, and that's your party and that's how you'll vote - no questions asked). No, I'd vote for Mitt Romney because I think that he can do the job, and because his value set is close to my own. And I think that, coming from someone who has chosen not to hold onto Mormon beliefs, speaks volumes.
jaredhill at 6:21PM on Aug 16th 2007
93. Hey, McGeese...."regurgitated anti Mormon hogwash"...? Nah, not at all. Just pointing out the reality to Mormons who want to whitewash their sordid history. This is not "bashing", it's simply countering the Mormon propaganda machine (which has reared it's head more than once on this thread.) It may be "regurgitated", and it may be "anti Mormon", but it's certainly not "hogwash."
After all, the Catholic Church (of which I am not a member) has embraced the Inquisition.
Why is it impossible for Mormons to embrace their very real history?
Answer: because it might cost them members.
And that's the real bottom line. More members = more money.
timber at 10:08PM on Aug 16th 2007
94. Here's the problem you run into, Jared: when a person chooses to believe in a faith that contains ideas so far out of the "mainstream" as to be legitimately cult-like (ie, "the truly faithful will become gods themselves", which is straight out of Cult 101), then their judgement in OTHER areas becomes questionable at the very least.
Are Mormons generally good, decent, honest, respectable people?
Yes.
Their religion and culture demands it. I grew up with MANY Mormons, and they were all, to a man, woman, and child, very decent, hardworking, respectable people.
But you can be a decent, hardworking, respectable person, and still wear a tin hat at home to "keep the government from reading your mind."
Mormons believe in some very bizarre things that could lead one to seriously question their judgement about OTHER, more IMPORTANT things than "becoming a god"...like Social Security, National Defense, Welfare, Health Care, Education, etc etc etc.
If I was a great leader...a truly remarkable leader....but I stood up one day and said "I believe that we are all descended from aliens from a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, and in the year 2013, the mother aliens will come back to earth and wisk us all away to their planet"....would you question my judgement?
I would hope so.
(((The church continues to expand in areas outside of White America - so the idea of this church espousing racist beliefs is absurd. )))
Nevertheless....and you really need to understand this point...that doesn't change the church's racist PAST, and the subtle undertones of racism that still exist. "The Church" may officially condemn racism NOW...but they didn't always.
And the excuse of "well, everybody ELSE was doing it" isn't really an excuse, now is it?
timber at 10:20PM on Aug 16th 2007
95. Yo, Steph, Cuckoo, Cuckoo.
Religious choice is a personal decision. Could care less about ones Higher Power or lack thereof.
Although Mormons do have peculiar taste in their choice of under garments, yeah?
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!!!!close to 3,800 dead. happy yet GOP?
rhodalee at 9:32AM on Aug 18th 2007
96. Learned something a tad unusual about the Mormon religion last night. So husband and wife marry, it's considered a 'celestial marriage', when they die they go wherever they go and have their own planet to be supreme rulers over.
Was I tripping or is this true. If true its absolutely MAD!! If true I am putting them in the same category as scientologists. No IFS, ANDS or BUTS!!
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!!!!!!3,800 dead. GOP happy yet?
rhodalee at 3:46PM on Aug 19th 2007
97. "the fact that Mormonism is a sexist, racist, autocratic religion with some pretty funny beliefs. My friend was kicked out of the Mormon church and shunned by the her own family and friends when she refused to throw a black kid out her club scout pack."
Your friend is not being honest with you. The LDS church would never require that someone be expelled on the basis of race alone. There have been black members of the church almost since it's very foundation and we count persons of all racial groups around the globe as part of our number.
A sexist church would never encourage education for women. After all such a church would want them ignorant and easily repressable. The LDS church firmly belives in women obtaining as much education as they can. I'm a female member of the LDS faith and I have never felt like a second class citizen. I feel fully empowered to make my own choices.
An autocratic church would not encourage membership to ponder and seek the truth for themselves. The LDS church encourages members to confirm for themselves the things they are taught.
As to the funny beliefs. You are entitled to that opinion but I challenge you to objectively evaluate the beliefs of any major religion and you will find things that seem strange or incredible in them all. There is nothing we belive that is any odder than some of the things mentioned in the Bible (which we DO belive in and use as holy scripture).
"like saying the Mormon church has decided to route out pologmy, and is making steps to move towards equality for women."
We'll Romney is not an official spokesperson for the LDS church so it wouldn't be his place to make statements of that nature. The LDS church has made many public statements about these issues. Look through LDS.org or Mormon.org to see a record of the LDS church's stand on a wide range of issues including those you have raised here.
"There is no question that pologymy, ie sexual slavery starting with minor girls, is going on right now in the USA with the Mormon church turning a blind eye"
The LDS church has been one of the most vocal opponents of the so called fundamentalist cults and their practices. They are very clear about the fact that they do not recognize or support these groups and are in no way affiliated with them.
I encourage anyone who is interested in understanding what LDS people truly belive to seek information straight from the source by talking to a member friend/neighbor, reading what the declared Church stance on the issues is on LDS.org or Mormon.com, and see what are basic beliefs are by reading the Articles of Faith. I'm not asking you not to gather information from other or even critical sources. I'd just appreciate the courtesy of balancing it out.
allie at 1:39AM on Aug 20th 2007
98. "More members = more money."
Um, in order for money to be a motivation there would have to be a person or group of persons profiting personally from it. The President of the LDS church and other leaders live comfortable but modest lifestyles. I had a friend who lived in the same apartment buildin as the church. It was nice but nothing opulent. Most of them live largely off the resources they accumulated from full time work done earlier in their lives. We have a lay ministry. Our Bishops and stake Presidents all have full time regular jobs and do not earn a penny for their hard work. Why should they care about the size of the congregation if there is no personal gain? Yes, the LDS church collects voluntary tythes. Yes, they do invest this money. Yes, They have vast financial resources. I think this demonstrates fiscal prudence and good stewardship over the donations of it's members. The Church is able to magnify these contributions and reinvest them in construction of meeting houses, education, and humanitarian aid.
allie at 1:55AM on Aug 20th 2007
99. Sordid history! Ha. have you bothered to examine your own churches history? Oh I just bet it's a pretty good read. As an agnostic I have read the historys of most of the great churches of America many of which by the way got started about the same time as the LDS some just a pinch earlier. Where did Joseph Smith get the idea for polygamy you wonder? Well the LDS will tell you he read it in the Bible..Oh what a shocker tell me it ain't so. Well folks it is. But it also came from the Menninite group he hung with to. You see the LDS aren't the first religious so called christian groups to have poligamy but they are the first group to actually become so wide spread and powerful and very noticed that it scared the mess out of protestents, who as usual like to protest just about anything they can't swallow. Not because of polygamy for its own sake because they didn't do anything to the menninites. Shear politics. I wonder what would have happened if all those religious fanatics would have left Joe Smith alone and not have riled a mob that resulted in his death which spurred this little Church to such great deeds of survival that no other group in the country comes even close to matching. Would it have been the same? The constant strains of survival across the american plains and dealing with nature and war at the same time has created a very hardy and industrias group. You have yourselves to thank for that. Were would the western United States be were it not for the persecution of the LDS. It would probably not own Texas and much of the United states would have ended at the Mississippi River for a good spell and Mexico would have been right next door. Don't forget all the help that the mormon settlers provided to get soldiers to the west to fight the spanish american war. Yep they have indeed shaped this country so try not to be to gall darn sufficatingly ignorant when discussing their ideals. the LDS are what they are in large part because the rest of the religious right helped shape them and push them to become as such. In' shallah... What will be will be.
patrice ferguson at 12:21PM on Aug 20th 2007
100. Mark E. Peterson, Brigham Young U, Provo, Utah-8/27/54. Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference Report, 1967, pg 38. Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pg 114, pp 102, p143.
All refer to the black race as inferior, in ncahoots with Lucifer, Descendants of Cain, which they adhere to the belief that Cain, for retribution for fratricide had his skin turned black to remain an evil outsider. They believe God flattened all descendants noses and darkened their skin and placed them in Africa. I wonder how the LDS feels that the evolution of man decided skin color, facial features due to the fact of their environment allowing them to live and breathe comfortably according to temperature and geography of where they lived. The LDS are a bunch of racist sick pups.
According to the LDS website, the real website, LDS.org, Marriage is 'Among the blessings of those that attain the highest degree in the celestial kingdom is the blessing of eternal increase, which amongother things, means that even after death MEN may continue to cooperate with God in bringing to pass theimmortality and eternal life of MAN.'
HUH?
Sorry, this is very much akin to a cult. Whacky bunch............
rhodalee at 1:09PM on Aug 20th 2007
101. As for the comments of racism. Nothing could be further from the truth. From it's inception the LDS church from my reading has always reached out to other races most notably the Indians of north america. This while most missionaries and military and civilians were treating their host the Indians like barbarians and trash.
And don't forget that in those times not one church in America allowed a black person under its roof. They condoned the slavery even co-signed it by saying they are a slave race by sighting vague scripture of the descendents of a long dead people the sons of Canaan. It was a popular beleive that originated in eastern orthodoxies about the time that Europe needed someone to do their dirty work for them.
There have been black folks as early in their church as 1870's as part of their higher ranking groups known as the Quorum of 70's I think that be right. Where about that time no protestant or evangelitical would have a black clergy. Much less minister to one next to a white person up till the late 20th century. So who is calling the kettle black?
As for the women they are or rather should be a very greatful group of people inside that bunch for no other religious body has assigned to women such a great role as to recognize the true power of a women in her compassion, organizational skills and humanitarian instinct to create a body called to protect and nurture every member of the church in all things spiritual, physical and emotional. They call this body a Releif Society and indeed it operates as such. No not even the nuns in the catholic church have such great missions ahead of them as to actually be the stable and manger of the church iteself. Mormons are really a fascinating group that take the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the one. Their wealth and talent, and numbers speak of their hard one work and unselfish toiling to people outside themselves as well as their own the world over. Where men, women and even children have a place to do for others, no one being left out, no one feeling that there is nothing to do or a cause to have. Its a treasure that blighted christianity should wake up to. Stop whining when in churches everywhere kids aren't given the spiritual nourishing they need, fathers aren't to be found in church much less feel likes its a place for them and women pretty much run the show because their men folk are left holding their hands together. And families are second or third priority if at all behind that vacation, carreer, and self interest that often spell out divorces. If you resent their successes you must resent it because you don't possess what makes it so worthwhile. Like some poor resent the rich because they don't possess what it takes to make one rich. Hard work, smart work, and plenty of diligence and grace. If they have millions of dollars in their coffors one wonders if that could work to our advantage. Let the LDS Mitt make success happen and actually wipe out our debt and fill the coffers for america so we don't have to sell our grand kids to China for debt resolution. He is a smart man and deals smart with finances and business and politics.
He has the right stuff to work it out. Let him try. What can it hurt but to say no and end up loosing everything you worked hard for to heavy heedless spending for programs and nonsence we don't need? If your gonna consider his religion fine do... Remember his church is the fourth largest church in America with some very bank savvy ways, Are they poor? NO. Are they selfish? Hardly? Best of all They really do think that God is going to make this land Paradise and they are bound and determined to see it make it happen as far as it depends upon them. Sabatage America? Not on any Mormons death bed. They are that serious about this country really. And given their organizational skills that incorporate every man women and child to the task of building the 'Kingdom of God on earth" as they say really puts the hard work wins the dollar moto of protestents to shame. For the latter only suffices to work for self and the first works for all. Take that into consideration in your election choices. I for one will vote for the guy that stands the test of time and action and who has lived the very ideal while allowing others the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. A fact that most evangaliticals refuse to do without calling others names and sending them to places that are hot.
patrice ferguson at 1:16PM on Aug 20th 2007
102. in reference to the headline... Romney doesnt have a "mormon problem" he's a religious man who is obviously proud of his faith. the bigots in america are the ones with the problem. (shame on you for being prejudice, after all this is the 21st century.) "the solution" for the bigots is to vote for a non believer and the rest of us will vote for a candidate that we believe has solutions to the "real issues".
Mary at 1:50PM on Aug 20th 2007
103. The Jewish media never asks the question of the "Jewish Problem?" Lieberman not being electable as a VP candidate and ruining Gore's bid. Bloomberg being a viable contendor? I think the media wants to pretend that a Jew has a chance, that antisemitism doesn't exist. If a Morman cannot be elected there is no way a Jew can be elected. Why is the media not analysing the Jewish question? Probably because Jews who control the media thru religious preferential hiring practices are in denial and want to pretend they have arrived.
John at 4:00PM on Aug 20th 2007
104. Patrice, I was on the LDS.org site. Take it up with the Mormons, only reiterating their doctrine. Just the messenger.............
rhodalee at 5:57PM on Aug 20th 2007
105. Who cares if he's mormon. He's still a dumb ass republican who supports the war and our worthless president.
John at 8:38PM on Aug 21st 2007