speechlesstx
Aug 8, 2007, 10:44 AM
Speaking from the experience of having debated aspects of Mormonism with Mormons, religious and secular liberals and one 'freethinker,' prior to Mitt Romney throwing his hat into the ring it was forbidden to criticize or even question Mormons or Mormonism - especially by a conservative mainstream Christian. Mormons after all, have suffered the severest 'oppression' similar to blacks and Native Americans which leaves them untouchable. I guess that's changed. Left leaning columnist/blogger Polman appears to be changing that 'rule.'
Few Americans voiced concerns about the Mormon faith when Mitt Romney's father ran for president 40 years ago...
But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008 (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/_polman/20070805_The_American_Debate___Yes__Romney_needs_t o_answer_questions.html), rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity...
So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's "one true church." He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that "I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs."
But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.
Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping "the church of the devil." Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.
Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.
As Romney himself recently told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, "I believe in my faith. I love my faith, and I would in no way, shape, or form try to distance myself from my faith or the fundamental beliefs of my faith." He was a church leader in Massachusetts, as were his forebears out West. And his great-grandfather had five wives, after being personally instructed to practice polygamy by Smith's successor, Brigham Young.
But does all this mean Romney is too weird to lead America?...
Those arguments might be enough to propel him through the primaries; the general election might be another story. Some questions do seem appropriate.
First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on "faith-promoting" information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, "Some things that are true are not very useful." Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?
Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of "a quintessentially American faith" (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called "American exceptionalism," the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?
What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.
Well now, he's done a great job of highlighting nearly every negative aspect of Mormonism in his column - something I would be raked over the coals for. And it was just a few short months ago the left was absolutely outraged that neocon fundamentalists would be so bigoted as to, as Polman puts it, be "weirded out" at the thought of a Mormon president.
Do you care if Romney is a Mormon? Has the left shifted away from outrage over anti-Mormon bigotry for political expediency?
Few Americans voiced concerns about the Mormon faith when Mitt Romney's father ran for president 40 years ago...
But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008 (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/_polman/20070805_The_American_Debate___Yes__Romney_needs_t o_answer_questions.html), rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity...
So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's "one true church." He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that "I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs."
But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.
Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping "the church of the devil." Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.
Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.
As Romney himself recently told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, "I believe in my faith. I love my faith, and I would in no way, shape, or form try to distance myself from my faith or the fundamental beliefs of my faith." He was a church leader in Massachusetts, as were his forebears out West. And his great-grandfather had five wives, after being personally instructed to practice polygamy by Smith's successor, Brigham Young.
But does all this mean Romney is too weird to lead America?...
Those arguments might be enough to propel him through the primaries; the general election might be another story. Some questions do seem appropriate.
First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on "faith-promoting" information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, "Some things that are true are not very useful." Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?
Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of "a quintessentially American faith" (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called "American exceptionalism," the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?
What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.
Well now, he's done a great job of highlighting nearly every negative aspect of Mormonism in his column - something I would be raked over the coals for. And it was just a few short months ago the left was absolutely outraged that neocon fundamentalists would be so bigoted as to, as Polman puts it, be "weirded out" at the thought of a Mormon president.
Do you care if Romney is a Mormon? Has the left shifted away from outrage over anti-Mormon bigotry for political expediency?