I have already opened my big fat mouth about this a couple of times here, but I’m finding it hard to resist another attempt to make myself clear.
For me, the political issue has nothing to do with whether Mormons are or are not Christians. The Presidency is not a religious office, though it clearly can play a role in articulating our civil religion. And while our civil religion surely has “Judeo-Christian” (or, more broadly, Abrahamic) elements, it is certainly possible even for non-Christians more or less sincerely to evoke these elements as part of our cultural heritage (the so-called “ceremonial deism” that even some of the more fastidious members of the Supreme Court can countenance).
At least as important as the President’s role as articulator of our civil religion is his or her role as a constitutional chief executive. Here the question is the degree to which a candidate properly understands the constitutional limits of the office and of the federal government. This understanding has nothing to do with a person’s faith or lack thereof, It’s possible to imagine a sincere Christian who is an adherent of the “living Constitution” school of jurisprudence and a skeptic who’s a strict constructionist.
Then there’s policy. We might get general principles from Scripture, natural law, or common grace, but how to implement or instantiate those general principles in public policy is matter for prudence. Reasonable people can disagree about many of the issues, and even where the teaching of a religious tradition seems clear, our practical political choices rarely offer unmixed blessings or curses.
Finally, there’s character. There are scoundrels in the pews and decent people of integrity who don’t go to church. In order to be confident of my judgment on the three aforementioned grounds, I also have to be confident that the candidate is—and will (within the limits of human sinfulness) continue to be—who he or she claims to be.
If Mitt Romney satisfies me on all these grounds better than any of the other plausible options, I’ll vote for him. His Mormonism would matter to me no more than would Joe Lieberman’s Judaism, Rick Santorum’s Catholicism, or John Ashcroft’s charismatic Christianity. (Yes, I know Ashcroft isn’t running for President, but I couldn’t think of another politically prominent charismatic off the top of my head.)
October 14th, 2011 | 2:53 pm
Excellent. There is nothing about Romney’s politics that is anything less than mainstream American. Attempts to paint him as somehow beyond the pale as a potential president because of his religion are scurrilous. Any Christian who complains about religious bigotry in other contexts ought to be able to recognize it here, too.
October 14th, 2011 | 3:31 pm
David Nickol Any Christian who complains about religious bigotry in other contexts ought to be able to recognize it here, too.
While religious bigotry may be the motive for some people, your claim that anyone who thinks that opposing Romney because of his religion is a bigot is absurd. What about the person who thinks that supporting a Mormon for president would advance the cause of Mormonism and have eternally detrimental effects? Whether they are right or not, their motivation is not “bigotry.” You don’t seem to account for the fact that some people have beliefs that transcend and trump political beliefs.
October 14th, 2011 | 4:16 pm
I support or oppose candidates for many reasons. Anything that influences their political stances is relevant to me. If a Muslim were running for president, I would want to know how that candidate dealt with Muslim teachings concerning government and religion. I would be concerned about applications of sharia law.
Similarly, I happen to think that belief in original sin keeps a politician from overreaching and thinking that government can correct everything. There is a difference in problem solving behavior if a candidate thinks of himself as a potential god no matter how far in the future that potentiality may lie.
I have lived most of my life in a heavily Mormon area and have voted for Mormon candidates for office but I will always believe that the religious persuasion of a candidate is relevant to how I cast my vote.
October 14th, 2011 | 5:52 pm
What about the person who thinks that supporting a Mormon for president would advance the cause of Mormonism and have eternally detrimental effects?
Joe Carter,
I would have to think very carefully about it, but my tentative first answer is that either sounds like bigotry to me or it sounds un-American. I don’t mean un-American in a necessarily pejorative way. I mean such a person would not buy into the idea that all men are created equal, that we do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin, and so on.
I don’t believe that you can come up with a religious justification for just anything and claim it is not bigotry. There were many people who opposed integration for religious reasons, and I think that made them racists. Claiming to do something for reasons of religion or conscience does not automatically absolve every action imaginable.
Being religious is no guarantee of not being a bigot.
October 14th, 2011 | 5:58 pm
There is nothing about Romney’s politics that is anything less than mainstream American. Attempts to paint him as somehow beyond the pale as a potential president because of his religion are scurrilous.
Yes, he’d make a fine Democratic candidate.
The problem is he’s running as a Republican.
October 14th, 2011 | 6:19 pm
Similarly, I happen to think
It makes me mad that people feel they need to justify how they vote.
It is your right to vote any bleepin way you want to. EVEN IF YOU ARE A RAGING BIGOT.
The right to receive equal votes is not a basic civil right. Votes always have to be earned.. Nobody is ever entitled to votes.
October 14th, 2011 | 8:32 pm
“(Yes, I know Ashcroft isn’t running for President, but I couldn’t think of another politically prominent charismatic off the top of my head.)”
Sarah Palin?
October 14th, 2011 | 10:09 pm
Got me there. I should have said Sarah Palin.
October 15th, 2011 | 2:48 am
I disagree with this, but I wont belabor it. I think this is saying that religion in essence is irrelevant to public office, and the believer’s faith will never affect his character or policy.
October 15th, 2011 | 2:51 am
Joe Carter mentions that some people may be motivated to oppose a Mormon in the White House, not on the basis of bigotry, but because they believe in the “eternally detrimental effects” of a President advancing the cause of Mormonism.
How would a Mormon President advance Mormonism, in his office of the Presidency, that would be detrimental to the salvation of US citizens? After all, in the US, no US office holder can constitutionally advance his own particular religion through his office.
Moreover, wouldn’t this logic apply to any Mormon office holder, or any other religion that Joe Carter’s hypothetical religious person deems likely to produce “eternally detrimental effects”?
Therefore, Harry Ried, Orrin Hatch, should be cause for concern, according to this logic. After all, Senators are rather influential people, and could influence a President, in many nefariously Mormon ways.
And, while were thinking along these lines, we better not have any advisors, or Cabnet members, who are Mormon either, since they could adversely affect a nonmormon President.
I don’t believe that Joe Carter is a bigot. But whether a devout Christian is intending to be a bigot or not, in his opposition to a Mormon President, it would certainly degenerate into bigotry, if Joe Carter’s hypothetical Christian’s objection to a Mormon President were consistenly implemented.
It’s disturbing that someone writing for a journal, FIRST THINGS, that I have been an avid reader since 1992, and I know of many Mormons who have loved this journal, advancing an argument that, taken to its logical conclusion, would seem to be a basis for devout Christians opposing any Mormon office holder, who could be of influence.
October 15th, 2011 | 2:56 am
True, Joe Carter does not say that he personally believes the argument that he’s presenting, and does state “whether they’re right or not”, implying that he’s personally agnostic, he seems to be sympathetic to it. He frames it, as not being bigoted.
But, he seems to give the impression that it’s a good argument. Is it, Mr. Carter, in your view? Do you subscribe to it, or not?
October 15th, 2011 | 8:54 am
I disagree with this, but I wont belabor it. I think this is saying that religion in essence is irrelevant to public office, and the believer’s faith will never affect his character or policy.
The latest PC attempt … to try to get people to vote the way they’re told.
It’s not enough that you have to hire someone unqualified over someone who is better qualified (while real civil rights offenses are buried under an avalanche of affluent white boys appropriating the civil rights movement away from real civil rights cases, to be misused as a tool to manipulate the other party’s primary nominations). Now we have to prioritize identity over policy when deciding how to vote.
Except, oddly, liberals remain exempt from their own ideology. They’re welcome to be as prejudiced as they like against religious people. Nobody is going to think it a bad thing that liberals won’t vote for a Mormon, a Catholic, or an Evangelical. It is only conservatives who are expected to live up to liberal philosophies on how people “ought” to behave.
October 15th, 2011 | 9:50 am
By popularizing Mormonism and taking office, they can mainstream the faith in the same way Christianity became such-by providing members of the knowledge and political classes. They can also appoint mormons to offices, allocate money to benefit mormon charities, etc. there’s a lot that can be done, which is why said secular/atheistic people scream to high heaven if a fundamentalist even looks at the oval office, assuming they will turn the clock back on everything from women in the kitchen to gays in the military.
The more popular and prominent a false faith gets, the more likely it influences people, and that affects their eternal destiny. it’s honestly a wonder why Christians haven’t actively decried this before, because if it were any other religion and not one that uses our terminolgy, we’d be in crisis.
October 15th, 2011 | 11:17 am
I think this is saying that religion in essence is irrelevant to public office, and the believer’s faith will never affect his character or policy.
Dblade,
No, not at all. It is saying, in the case of Romney, that once you know about his character and the policies he espouses, and you would vote for him except for the fact that he is a Mormon, you are exhibiting irrational prejudice against a person on the basis of his religion.
October 15th, 2011 | 11:47 am
Joe Carter,
Suppose I own a business and I am interviewing candidates for the position of Director of Marketing. The Director of Marketing in my company supervises twenty people. I interview somebody who is extremely impressive. He’s brilliant, athletic, handsome, civic-minded, and he’s currently the Director of Marketing in a smaller firm than mine, in which he has done an excellent job. He’s perfect for the job . . . but he is a Mormon. I say to myself, “This guy is so impressive, that I worry about the twenty Christian employees who will be reporting to him. Might they not fall under his influence? Might one or two of them even think that if this is the kind of person the Mormon religion turns out, they would consider becoming Mormons themselves?” My company is an Equal Opportunity Employer and has never discriminated on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin, but I think to myself that this is a matter of the immortal souls of the twenty employees in the Marketing Department. I say to myself that hiring him could “advance the cause of Mormonism and have eternally detrimental effects.” What is more important, the EEOC, or the immortal souls of the people who work for my company? Clearly I must not hire this person.
Wouldn’t having a Mormon in any position of power or influence—say, as a CEO—potentially “advance the cause of Mormonism and have eternally detrimental effects”? Isn’t it incumbent upon all good Christians to do what they can to prevent Mormons from occupying any position where they might advance the cause of Mormonism?
And what if I am an Evangelical who feels that Catholics in positions of influence or power might advance the cause of Catholicism? Or what if I am a Catholic who believes Evangelicals in positions of power and influence might advance the cause of Evangelical Christianity? Or what if I am a Catholic or Evangelical who feels that allowing Jews in positions of power and influence might influence fellow Christians to deny Christ?
What is left, once you go that route, of not discriminating on the basis of religion?
October 15th, 2011 | 1:50 pm
Joe Carter writes:
What about the person who thinks that supporting a Mormon for president would advance the cause of Mormonism and have eternally detrimental effects? Whether they are right or not, their motivation is not “bigotry.” You don’t seem to account for the fact that some people have beliefs that transcend and trump political beliefs.
Since “bigot” refers to “a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.,” I wouldn’t be able to decide whether or not the “what about” person Carter speaks of was “blindly and intolerantly” withholding support from a Mormon Presidential candidate (aka, Mitt Romney) unless I knew :
A.) Why they were warranted in believing that support of a Mormon for President would “advance the cause of Mormonism” (whatever on earth that means).
B.) Why they were warranted in believing that “advanc[ing] the cause of Mormonism” would result in “eternally detrimental effects.”
For the life of me, I can’t think of any good reasons that would warrant a belief in either A or B. The fact that “advance the cause of Mormonism” is not provided with a gloss doesn’t help. Would a vote for Nixon in 1960 have “advanced the cause of Quakerism”? (For that matter, would buying a box of Quaker Oats have the same “advancing” effect?) So, in the absence of any argument in support of A or B, I can only conclude that David Nickol is correct and that what we see here is a species of religious bigotry (and one that strikes at the heart of American civil society, I might add): a blind and intolerant withholding of support from Mitt Romney simply because he is a Mormon.
October 15th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
David, a potential employer owes a duty of fairness to anyone he might hire or reject. The job candidate has a claim on the potential employer’s sense of justice. I’m not sure a candidate has any kind of claim on a potential voter at all, other than the claims all humans have on one another.
I’m not sure we owe any duties beyond charity to any candidate for any office. We are free, legally and I believe morally, not to vote for him because we don’t like the shape of his nose, since “voting for someone” is not a benefit of charity or a requirement of justice. We don’t even have to vote at all.
That said, if charity requires that we not judge someone or impute motives on fallacious grounds or think ill of people without cause, that might come into play. My only purpose is to point out that your parallel is weak at the point where the duties of employers and the duties of potential voters differ to a very large degree.
October 15th, 2011 | 3:57 pm
We are free, legally and I believe morally, not to vote for him because we don’t like the shape of his nose, since “voting for someone” is not a benefit of charity or a requirement of justice.
pentamom,
Since voting is done by secret ballot in the United States, all citizens are free to vote by whatever criteria they want. However, those who believe that voting is a precious right will quite reasonably frown on anyone who trivializes his or her vote by voting based on the shape of a candidate’s nose.
Also, we vote not for the benefit of the candidates, but (in the case of the presidency) for the benefit of not just ourselves, but our fellow citizens and the country as a whole. There is a very significant moral component to voting. It might even be argued that voting is primarily a matter of moral choice.
October 15th, 2011 | 4:43 pm
Pentamom writes:
David, a potential employer owes a duty of fairness to anyone he might hire or reject. The job candidate has a claim on the potential employer’s sense of justice. I’m not sure a candidate has any kind of claim on a potential voter at all, other than the claims all humans have on one another.
*************
Pentamom, the last time I looked politicians – even American politicians – were humans, too, and thus have as strong a claim upon a potential voter’s sense of justice as does a job candidate upon her potential employer. Honest.
Pentamom also writes:
I’m not sure we owe any duties beyond charity to any candidate for any office. We are free, legally and I believe morally, not to vote for him because we don’t like the shape of his nose, since “voting for someone” is not a benefit of charity or a requirement of justice. We don’t even have to vote at all.
*************
What, you see no civic duty tied to an American voter’s participation in U.S. politics? And no strong connection between law, society, and morality in America? How puzzling.
Here I think you point to the heart of the matter for the “Romney controversy”: whether voting is just an individual RIGHT, which we can exercise or not — more importantly, exercise responsibly or not – as a matter of individual preference or the dictates of whimsy, OR whether it is a civic DUTY which requires that we participate in local, county state and national elections – at the very least by voting – in a mature, sober and REASONABLE fashion.
I’ll cast my vote for seeing voting as a civic duty.
October 15th, 2011 | 10:01 pm
David, Mormonism affects their character and policies. What’s irrational is that somehow he can be a Mormon and it have zero to do with him at all, and he somehow turns it off once he gets into office and governs like a good secularist.
If you argue that it doesn’t, then what I said stands.
October 15th, 2011 | 10:28 pm
Of course a candidate has as strong a claim on our justice as someone else. The question is whether not voting for someone can actually be called an “injustice,” since no one has a duty to elect a particular person to office in the same way that they have a duty to support his neighbor’s physical safety and well-being. Denying someone a livelihood and denying him your consent among many possible consents to a rare privilege that should only be extended to those considered exceptionally worthy are pretty far different.
October 15th, 2011 | 10:29 pm
However, those who believe that voting is a precious right will quite reasonably frown on anyone who trivializes his or her vote by voting based on the shape of a candidate’s nose.
Those who believe that voting is a precious right will quite reasonably frown on anyone who tries to coerce people into voting a certain way.
Their vote is not yours. It is not up to you to decide how it “ought” to be spent.
Trying to guilt, shame, or coerce people – or outright stigmatizing people as “bigots”, or accusing them of perpetrating injustices – because they vote according to their own conscience rather than yours is itself an injustice.
By trying to shame people into accepting your criteria rather than respecting their right to their own, you are the one undermining the basic principle upon which self-governance depends. You are acting as if your conscience deserves more of a vote than theirs does – as if equality isn’t good enough for you; you demand more.
October 16th, 2011 | 12:26 am
Joe Carter makes a point that’s pretty much analogous to people’s idea during the ’08 campaign that a victory for Obama would be a victory for black people in American society in and of itself, regardless of his politics. take a black man who doesn’t generally agree with Obama but votes for him for that reason — maybe he also has a general policy of favoring black candidates over others in all elections, to advance blacks’ position in American society. you could say that this is a racialist attitude that could possibly tip into racism depending on the person, but it doesn’t automatically equate to prejudice.
similarly, you could definitely label some of the anti-Mormon attitudes toward Romney as sectarian, but still make a distinction between that and outright bigotry. even if the distinction’s small/nonexistent in individual cases.
October 16th, 2011 | 2:04 am
By trying to shame people into accepting your criteria rather than respecting their right to their own, you are the one undermining the basic principle upon which self-governance depends.
Blake,
You seem to take the bizarre position that it is wrong to try to influence other people’s votes. Would you ban political campaigns? Debates? Endorsements? Door-to-door political canvassing? Flyers? Commercials?
An essential part of democracy is the right to try to persuade other people to accept one’s own way of thinking.
October 16th, 2011 | 12:37 pm
An essential part of democracy is the right to try to persuade other people to accept one’s own way of thinking.
Oh, that must be why you call those you disagree with “bigots” and try to shame and stigmatize them.
Because bullying is the only way liberals can persuade anyone.
So pointing out that your talk of “tolerance” is actually a way to dishonestly promote intolerance is a first step in learning how to have a higher level of discourse.
October 16th, 2011 | 2:40 pm
pentamom writes:
Of course a candidate has as strong a claim on our justice as someone else. The question is whether not voting for someone can actually be called an “injustice,” since no one has a duty to elect a particular person to office in the same way that they have a duty to support his neighbor’s physical safety and well-being. Denying someone a livelihood and denying him your consent among many possible consents to a rare privilege that should only be extended to those considered exceptionally worthy are pretty far different.
*************
To answer your question: you can justly or unjustly deny a person a job, just as you can justly or unjustly deny a person your vote. I’m claiming that a voter who withholds their vote for a candidate solely because of the candidate’s religious affiliation does so UNJUSTLY because the denial is based upon religious bigotry. In large part I’m claiming this because I’d argue that bigotry is by definition unjust, unfair, and unreasonable.
To restate: “my” question is whether or not withholding one’s vote for a candidate solely on the basis of their religious affiliation – nowadays the issue is Romney and Mormonism; back in 1960, it was Kennedy and Catholicism – is proper or not. I’ve been arguing that it is improper and uncivil to vote in such a way because it amounts to bigotry. I find religious bigotry to be not only repugnant, but also UNJUST and a very bad reason for casting (or not casting) a vote.
October 16th, 2011 | 6:35 pm
Oh, that must be why you call those you disagree with “bigots” and try to shame and stigmatize them.
Blake,
Are there no bigots in the world? Is there no such thing as religious bigotry? I am a Democrat. Of all the Republican candidates, I think Romney has the best chance of beating Obama in the 2012 election. The more people who don’t want to vote for him based on any> reason the better. I am not calling opposition to Romney based solely on his religion bigotry because I want people to vote for him. I am calling it religious bigotry because it is religious bigotry.
Because bullying is the only way liberals can persuade anyone.
I don’t think I need to characterize this statement for people to recognize it for what it is.
October 16th, 2011 | 8:35 pm
I just spent four wonderful days in Utah, giving two talks at BYU and one to the LDS Public Affairs Office in Salt Lake City. A friend of mine on the BYU faculty told me this story.
A friend of his was talking to an Evangelical Protestant in order to better understand Evangelical views on justification and salvation. The Mormon asked, “If a Christian murders someone, is he still saved?” The Evangelical answered, “yes.” The Mormon asked, “If a Christian commits adultery, is he still saved?” Again, the Evangelical answered, “yes.” And then the Mormon asked, “If the Christian became a Mormon, would be still be saved.” The Evangelical paused and said he wasn’t sure.
October 17th, 2011 | 12:19 am
Blake,
Are there no bigots in the world? Is there no such thing as religious bigotry?
If bigotry flourishes today, it is because of – not in spite of – you self-appointed keepers of other peoples’ thoughts and beliefs.
A guy I know was recently fired for, in reality, being black. He had no recourse because false, manipulative people have appropriated the civil rights movement – taking away from him, the guy who really needs it – so that they can misuse and abuse it, trying to make it nothing more than a tool to force other people to throw away votes.
Since it’s obvious the left wingers can’t get votes via honest means, they have to steal the civil rights movement away from those who worked for it. Blacks went through fire hoses and murder just so that you could have a new rhetorical tool to try to manipulate elections with.
Who appointed you keeper of who is and isn’t a “bigot”, anyway?
October 17th, 2011 | 12:20 am
Save words like “bigot” for what they were actually intended for.
Stop trying to appropriate things as a means of manipulation. “Bigot” is a horrible word because it means something bad. By trying to make it apply to everyone who doesn’t do what you tell them to, you rob the word of its meaning, and leave us with no way to distinguish real bigotry from your game-playing.
October 17th, 2011 | 12:35 am
Because bullying is the only way liberals can persuade anyone.
I don’t think I need to characterize this statement for people to recognize it for what it is.
The Left has gone so far overboard as to depict Perry as a racist for leasing a property that had a rock with a dirty word on it.
Now I’ve seen almost a dozen different attacks from liberals going after Cain as an anti-black racist.
You guys are overusing that word, “bigot”.
I think I see Fonzie on water skis….
October 17th, 2011 | 2:55 am
(First Things – Saw this “gem” on the net!)
LDS a “cult”? What about the “rapture”?
by Bruce Rockwell
Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is “not a Christian” and Mormonism is a “cult,” according to Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the Dallas (TX) First Baptist Church.
His “cult” remark is based on his belief that the Latter-day Saints church (which didn’t exist before 1830) is outside “the mainstream of Christianity.”
But Jeffress hypocritically promotes the popular evangelical “rapture” (theologically the “any-moment pretribulation rapture”) which is outside mainstream Christianity (Google “Pretrib Rapture Politics”) and which also didn’t exist before 1830 (Google “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty”)!
And there are 50 million American rapture cultists (some of whom turn Wikipedia into “Wicked-pedia” by constantly distorting the real facts about the rapture’s bizarre, 181-year-old history) compared with only 14 million LDS members.
The most accurate documentation on pretrib rapture history that I have found is in a nonfiction book titled “The Rapture Plot” which is carried by leading online bookstores. I know also that the same 300-page work can also be borrowed through inter-library loan at any library.
Latter-day Saints believe in fairness, which is why I feel called to share this message.
October 17th, 2011 | 8:19 pm
[...] What’s Mormonism Got to Do With It? – Agreed: “If Mitt Romney satisfies me on all these grounds better than any of the other plausible options, I’ll vote for him. His Mormonism would matter to me no more than would Joe Lieberman’s Judaism, Rick Santorum’s Catholicism, or John Ashcroft’s charismatic Christianity. (Yes, I know Ashcroft isn’t running for President, but I couldn’t think of another politically prominent charismatic off the top of my head.)” [...]
October 25th, 2011 | 9:23 pm
I am a Mormon. I served my country for 20 years in the Air Force. I am an attorney admitted to practice in three states. I am an adjunct instructor for a state university. I like to think I am being a good citizen of my nation and community and profession.
Now someone comes along and says that, because I am a Mormon, I should not be allowed to work in any position that might “advance the cause of Mormonism”. That means he wants to make me a second class citizen, and deny me my equal rights as an American, because he does not want to see my religious belief “advanced” in any way. In other words, his vague fears about the “advance” of Mormonism justify acting in an un-American fashion towards a fellow American. Maybe he will deny tenure to Mormons on the faculty of his university. Maybe he will refuse to hire Mormons as doctors, attorneys, accountants, or building contractors, because it will “advance” Mormonism. He will want to avoid allowing ANY money to be paid to a Mormon, because the Mormon might pay some of the money as a tithe to his church, which will enable more Mormon missionaries to hit the streets and convert people to their religion.
How is that any different than the old bigotry against Catholics and Jews that was prevalent a century ago? How is it any different from the prejudice against blacks that was strong 50 years ago? How is it different from the prejudice against Japanese Americans that led to 100,000 of them being imprisoned for 3 years because their being allowed to live as free citizens might “advance” the cause of Imperial Japan? I am a Japanese American, so I am touchy about this.
Discriminating against a fellow American on the basis of race, religion, or national origin is illegal, and betrays the founding principle of America’s Declaration of Independence, that God created ALL MEN EQUAL. If you tell voters they are justified in voting against Romney solely on the grounds of his religion, you are betraying the Founding Fathers who prohibited religious prejudice in Article 6 of the US Constitution.
Mormons are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for America, just as they fought, and some died, in Vietnam, Korea, World War I and II. Bernie Fisher, a Mormon from Idaho, won the Medal of Honor in Vietnam, but according to your principles, he should not have been given that recognition, because it would “advance the cause of Mormonism”.
Philo Farnsworth, another Idaho Mormon, fought and won a battle with RCA over the patent for the invention of television, but according to your principle, he should have been denied that recognition, because it might “advance the cause of Mormonism”.
The true bottom line is that your prejudice is not going to accomplish its true goal. Even if Romney is not nominated or elected, the “cause of Mormonism” is going to keep advancing anyway, just as it has been doing for 180 years.
The Southern Baptists are so concerned with the annual loss of 50,000 members per year the last 5 years that they are proposing to change their name to make it more attractive to people outside the South. They have told their pastors since at least 1998 (when they had their convention in Utah) that many of those lost Baptists are joining the Mormons. Maybe they think that they are going to get their revenge on the Mormons for stealing “their” flocks (not God’s mind you) by blocking Romney from the presidency, but that is a stupid reason to cast a vote that is so important to the country.
They might want to consider that their blatant religious hatred is actually driving away people who believe in the religious tolerance that Christ taught in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and that preaching hatred of a decent and capable man solely because of his religion is going to do more to retard Evangelical churches, and “advance the cause of Mormonism”, more than anything that could possibly be done by Mitt Romney in the White House.
After all, by saying that electing a Mormon as president will “advance Mormonism”, the anti-Mormons are admitting that, once people get to see a real Mormon, they will NOT be turned off by him, but will be attracted to him. They will learn that many of the lurid stories about Mormons and their character that are promoted by Evangelicals are the product of either ignorance or conscious lies. The people will discover that Evangelicals who oppose a Mormon for election are not very good examples of what being a “Christian” is supposed to mean.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact