Not a Romney Post (Really)
I watched Governor Romney’s speech yesterday and I think he did a pretty good job. Goodness knows it’s tough being a Mormon with everyone watching your every move and asking annoying questions. If I were Governor Romney, my speech would have gone something along the lines of ”Won’t you all just leave me alone and let me drink my Coke in peace without grilling me about whether I’m allowed to drink caffeine? And enough with the questions about my underwear.”
Anyway, I just don’t understand why people are so hyped up on electing a “Christian” to the White House. Its current Christian occupant isn’t doing such a stellar job following the Golden Rule or getting the right answers to WWJD (although he claims Jesus is his personal savior. Guess they don’t talk much these days).
Seriously, what’s the appeal of electing a “Christian” president?
P.S. It’s way too early to be running for President. I wish the all candidates would go home (or back to work - who’s minding the store in New Mexico?) until next October. Okay, September.
i have been discussing with a friend lately if it would easier for a mormon or a jew to become president. its hard to determine how important the christian thing is.
Comment by nm — December 7, 2007 @ 8:44 am
ECS, I wish you were Governor Romney. That would solve all kinds of problems, and make the elections much more interesting to boot.
Comment by JohnR — December 7, 2007 @ 8:55 am
LOL, JohnR.
I should have put this in my post, but I wonder if Mormons think a Mormon Christian would be a better president than a generic Christian? Would God give a Mormon Christian better advice than a generic Christian?
Comment by ECS — December 7, 2007 @ 9:06 am
Maybe it makes sense (for the sake of the question…as we deal in the hypothetical) to distinguish between a “sincere” Christian and an insincere one.
Personally, I have a hard time finding Clinton’s, Bush’s or even Romney’s Christianity as being very sincere (or Christlike). To compare one of these men with (let’s say) Lowell Bennion, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, or Eugene England — it’s kinda hard (for me) to even take them seriously as Christians. So if politicians are going to simply co-opt the Christian moniker as part of an overall campaign strategy — then it’s pretty meaningless — and probably damaging to the Christian name.
It reminds me of a few Ghandi quotes on Christianity/Religion:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Oh…and this one….
“Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”
And then there’s the classic:
“God has no religion”
And I have to throw this in….
“What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea. ”
Now….as for a sincere Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc…..that’s a fascinating question too. If you could really determine if someone’s sincere (which is doubtful) — then it would probably depend on their level of sanity within their faith. If they are a Fowler’s Stage 3 Christian — well…that’s kinda scary to me.
But an authentic Fowler’s Stage 5 Christian, Jew or Muslim — I’m all over that like a duck on a june bug.
But then again…Nate Oman, Kristine Haglund, Ronan Head, Russell Fox, J. Nelson Seawright and ECS are not running.
Comment by John Dehlin — December 7, 2007 @ 9:36 am
John Dehlin–I will now spend the next 15 minutes laughing myself silly envisioning what Gene would have done with the national budget. No doubt I’d have loved wherever he allocated the funds, but I also wonder (ah, can’t believe I’m admitting it) how well an extremely smart, *sensitive and empathetic* person would survive the oval office. I think we need a sincere, smart, savvy president w/lots of advisers—and if Gene can advise from the great beyond, I’ll vote for whoever he endorses. God, of course, offers no official endorsement.
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 9:58 am
“I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe - dare I dream it - maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.” — Jon Stewart
Comment by queuno — December 7, 2007 @ 9:59 am
I was having a similar discussion with a very conservative relative, who commented something like “Of course we need a Christian president. Look at how awful the godless heathens now running Congress and the Senate are doing since they regained control.”
While I disagreed, it was a funny moment.
Comment by queuno — December 7, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Would God give a Mormon Christian better advice than a generic Christian?
But of course. You know, the whole fasting and prayer and gift of the Holy Ghost vs. just the like of Christ thing. But as long as he’s still writing in his journal and holding FHE and avoiding working on the Sabbath and doing his home teaching and going to the temple monthly and holding family scripture study daily, etc.
Seriously - if you took the most “righteous” Mormon you know, who did everything “right” (whatever “righteous” and “right” are), would you *really* want him to be President? Probably not.
(him = generic pronoun. Of course a Mormon female could be president, but only if the bishop asked her husband first.)
Comment by queuno — December 7, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Yeah…all of this makes me feel like we’d be much better off if (alleged) personal religious beliefs were just considered “out of bounds” in political discourse.
Unless the candidate is a Scientologist, of course.
JUST KIDDING!!!!!
Comment by John Dehlin — December 7, 2007 @ 10:13 am
I realize that when we’re frustrated with politicians’ positions and actions, it’s easy to jump into a judgment of their character. Certainly their beliefs inform and motivate their actions. But aren’t we all–politicians included–imperfect in acting in the way our beliefs should demand? I’m eternally grateful that the Lord “looketh on the heart.” I don’t agree completely with any of the people mentioned in this thread–Bush, Clinton, Romney, Eugene England, ECS, or anyone else–but I don’t think that puts me in a position to tell them that they really do or don’t actually believe any of the things they have said that they do.
Maybe President Bush’s actions aren’t as Christlike as they could be. Well, neither are mine, and that is exactly why I’m completely dependent on the Savior’s grace. Can’t we disagree politically without questioning the religious sincerity of people we don’t even know?
Comment by Melanie2 — December 7, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Ooh Melanie2. I’m sorry for what’s coming…..
Comment by hero — December 7, 2007 @ 10:21 am
You know, the more I read about what a “true” Christian is supposed to be, the more I think that I’m probably not a Christian–and moreover, I don’t think I want to be one. From now on when people ask me if I’m a Christian, I’m going to say, “I’m the best kind of Christian: a phony one.”
Comment by madhousewife — December 7, 2007 @ 10:21 am
i’m probably the only one here who thinks a nice sincere atheist is the best bet for president at this point. of course, such a person would never be elected. but after the debacle of one dude who thinks he gets personal revelation from god, let’s move on, shall we?
at this point, i think that being a “sincere” anything does not jive well with being a politician. being a politician means first and foremost lying, and that’s not very any-religion, really. evidence romney’s incredible flip-flopping on issues now that he has to cough up for the (campaign-financing and -promoting) fundamentalists.
whenever i hear a politician prattling on about his personal relationship with jesus, i mark him or her off my list entirely. for one thing, if you’re talking about it, it’s clear that you’re pandering to the evangelical power base, and to the multitude of people who misguidedly assume that religious = moral. (please.) and for another thing, if you’re taking about it, it’s not very personal, is it? so what’s your agenda? (that’s pretty obvious.)
so many people think it’s irrelevant whether or not a person is religious, and they think it’s ridiculous that people question romney (or anyone else) about their religious beliefs. but i don’t agree. for one thing, if they consider it an important enough aspect of their candidacy to talk about it all the friggin’ time (as bush obviously did), then it’s fair to say that it will be an important aspect of their presidency (as it was/is for bush), and the american people have a right to know how that might play out. secondly, some religions, such as mormonism, require intense investments of both time and commitment. the temple covenant to give everything you have to building up the kingdom of god (as defined by the mormons) might be worrisome to those considering a presidential candidate. despite romney’s protestations to the contrary, in the church, the order is supposed to be church & god first, country second. also, the fact that mormons believe in personal, present revelation from god (as opposed to seeking answers in the bible) might also be worrisome. are we going to get another president whose god tells him to enmesh his country in an endless, immoral and pointless war? or will this particular god thinks it’s time to bring out the nuclear option?
i think these are VERY important questions. it’s true, they might not be asked of a presbyterian, or a buddhist, or even a catholic nowadays, but they should indeed be asked of anyone whose religion is SUPPOSED TO take precedence over everything else in his life, and who is SUPPOSED TO be guided by revelation from (the mormon interpretation of) god.
just my 2 cents. now, i don’t do well in political conversation, so it’s unlikely i’ll comment again. but this is my perception of it.
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Maybe President Bush’s actions aren’t as Christlike as they could be. Well, neither are mine, and that is exactly why I’m completely dependent on the Savior’s grace.
that’s all well and fine, but your occasionally un-christlike actions probably don’t end up creating a crater of an entire nation…right?
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 10:57 am
ok, really not going to comment again.
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Melanie2–I actually think Bush probably is sincere. I think that made him more dangerous. Luckily for me, I don’t have to judge his soul or anyone else’s. (Thought we should judge his politics–good citizens do that, right? Right.) Can you imagine the horror of altering the face of an entire world and then finding out that what you took to be sincere direction from God was ego? That would suck. I hate it when such a revelation only has resulted in, say, a really stupid blog comment I’ve made.
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Chandelle–just reflecting on how your take on temple covenants could be used to resurrect manifest destiny (seeing as how MD round 1 used similar logic): shudder. You’re right, people should ask and people should be concerned. And a candidate should answer, honestly.
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 11:06 am
queno (#7): now see, that’s the sort of thing you need to capture for youtube. Get on installing that nannycam, brother! Hop hop!
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Chandelle–true, my decisions don’t even reach as far as my whole city, much less a nation (for which anyone who knows me is grateful!). But to take your example and imagine a world where Bush could run again, presumably you wouldn’t vote for him…can’t that choice be justified on the basis of the “crater” he created, not how sincere he may or may not be in his professed Christianity?
I know this is probably incredibly naive of me. Still, I read so many people posting and commenting here about the difficulties of dealing with others who seek to tell them what it means to be Mormon or a feminist or a SAHM or whatever. I think for the most part we want to define our own identities, and I’m just wishing we were able to extend that same courtesy to politicians and public figures. It’s not that their (or our) actions don’t matter–I just don’t think we have to get into speculative character battles. (I think politics are nasty enough on the issues alone.) And yes, I realize how foolish a hope that may be.
Comment by Melanie2 — December 7, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Hi, John - nice quotes from Gandhi. I wonder if Gandhi would have made a very effective president of India. Revolutionaries typically make bad heads of state.
I’m not sure a sincere Christian or a sincere believer of any religion would make me comfortable as a president. As Janet points out, sincere believers are prone to mistaking personal opinion for divine revelation.
Although the NY Times editorial today is much too critical of Romney’s speech, I think it nicely sums up why all this arguing about who is the most “Christian” is so distasteful.
Comment by ECS — December 7, 2007 @ 11:33 am
I think Chandelle has a point. I would prefer a moral atheist over the current Christians who are at the head of our government. I’m not going to vote for Romney but I do think he has lived his life morally. I fear that he would continue the war, which I am totally against.
Comment by Sherri — December 7, 2007 @ 11:39 am
#3 Everyone knows God gives Mormon Christians better advice than he give Generic Christians–just ask my mother-in-law.
Comment by Sue — December 7, 2007 @ 11:46 am
getting…sucked…in…can’t…stop…the pull…
melanie - you make a good point. my point is that it’s very different for a person to make a bad judgment call that results in, say, a bad war, because of bad information or a misguided ideology, and a person who made that decision based at least in part on what he says was direction from god and therefore refuses to either take personal reponsibility or to do anything about his mistake. THAT is the primary risk associated with a president who feels (or at least says) that he talks to god - in my not so very humble opinion. :O “don’t blame me - blame god” as well as “don’t argue with me - god told me so” can be (and often are) the effects of a person in power believing and/or saying that he talks to god.
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Amen, chandelle. Putting the issue of personal responsibility aside, why do people feel more comfortable with the possibility of the latter (i.e., God telling Bush to invade Iraq) over the former (i.e., Bush relying on the questionable intelligence procured by his hawkish advisers to invade Iraq) ?
Comment by ECS — December 7, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
it’s not a character assessment to say that bush called on his religious belief when he sent us to iraq - it’s the truth. it’s not judging whether he’s a “real” christian or not - a question that is entirely irrelevant to me - but whether his BELIEF as to how he identifies HIMSELF as a christian makes for good governing. if you have a president who ran on a campaign platform of being a born-again christian, and then made decisions in office that he openly admitted to being based on conversations with god (not the book), then i think it’s completely correct to assess religiosity in subsequent politicians as to how it might affect their presidency.
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
well, ECS, i think that’s pretty clear. if it was god who told bush to go to war, then we can hope for the best, that perhaps there was a “reason” behind this mess. if, on the other hand, bush made that decision based on bad intelligence or special interests, and there wasn’t anything divine about it, then that makes for a bad war, and that demands action. i think the “action” aspect, unfortunately, attends most consideration, consciously or not. nobody really wants to do anything about it, so sloughing the responsibility onto god is a pretty effective method of maintaining apathy. i remember a VTer once telling me that she didn’t really care whether the war was moral or legal or founded on sound reasoning, because obviously it was “supposed to happen,” otherwise it wouldn’t have happened, and besides, bush said that he received revelation about it, and obviously nobody would LIE about that, and therefore, we should just let it go. i must confess that my mouth dropped open at that one, but whatever.
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
So the POTUS has a direct line to God? Interesting.
Comment by ECS — December 7, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Unless of course our model of God is entirely off base and He’s more like the ancient Roman model that just likes to mess with people’s heads.
she says, stirring the pot. It’s raining and I’m bored
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
I think Chandelle has an excellent point, and I completely agree. I just get frustrated at all the attention on our “funny” beliefs, and not that issue. If most of the commentary I read said that they couldn’t vote for a Mormon because of a living prophet or the belief in personal revelation, then I could understand the logic of the argument even if I didn’t agree with it entirely. Instead, I keep reading articles about how ridiculous our faith is and how you can’t vote for someone who believes ridiculous things (despite the fact that any person of faith believes in something ridiculous on its face, that’s kind of why it involves faith).
I think asking questions about someones religiosity is warranted if they use it as a campaign tool, I just wish Huckabee et. al. were getting grilled too, and that they’d leave the “funny underwear” alone. I don’t want to be all mormon persecution complex over here, but it does smack of religious bigotry to me.
Comment by reese — December 7, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
i agree, actually. i, myself, would not vote for anybody who claimed to receive revelation from god, or who ran on a platform of “i’m religious so it goes without saying that i’m moral” - so i wouldn’t vote for romney or, really, any of the lot of ‘em. but it’s not because romney’s beliefs are “funny” or “weird” - mormons don’t really believe anything weirder than any other religion. i do believe that romney, as a mormon, is perhaps even more questionable because of the issues you mentioned - living prophet from whom he receives direction, personal revelation, etc. i don’t think that’s bigotous of me, because i’m not writing him off just because of his religion, but rather the aspects of his religion that might affect his presidency (and that would apply to anyone).
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
and yes, huckabee should indeed be getting grilled just as much. it’s bizarre that he would be able to pass off questions on religion to romney when obviously he is just as driven by religion, if not more so.
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
(although he claims Jesus is his personal savior. Guess they don’t talk much these days).
Wow, you have a window into his soul now? Wasn’t there something about judging Jesus said which could be applied here?
Comment by Jacob J — December 7, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Chill out, Jacob J. You know what I mean.
Comment by ECS — December 7, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Janet (18) - I don’t actually *talk* to most of my extended relatives. But I’ve got the email thread to prove it…
Re God/War, etc. - Didn’t GBH express a personal opinion in the early days of the war that (in his opinion) it met the standard for a justifiable war? So whether or not you had a president with a direct line to God, a president with a direct line to the prophet’s opinion would have heard, “well, *I* think so, but I don’t know about God…”.
Comment by queuno — December 7, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
janet,
if you’re bored you can reply to any one of the 243 emails I’ve sent you in the last 24 hours.
Comment by mfranti — December 7, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
John Dehlin,
I just wanted to say thanks for the shout out for Lowell Bennion. I graduated with a Service Learning Scholar distinction on my degree from the U of U Bennion Service Center, that was created in his legacy. What an amazing, Christlike man.
Comment by lemon drop — December 7, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
[…] of skeptics while A Bird’s Eye View sees the speech as pluralistic. My favorites are the feminist Mormon housewives — who are Christian enough to wonder why the president should have to be Christian, and of […]
Pingback by Romney Roundup | Main Street Plaza — December 7, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Upon further reflection, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with a religious leader claiming he talks to God. I mean, talk about wacky
Comment by madhousewife — December 7, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Yeah, mad - that’s the ultimate sign of insanity, the ability to actually talk to God. We need to round up those people and make them move…
Should it bother my clients that I pray over their projects? Or should it bother my advisor that I pray over my dissertation? (Scratch that, she’s one of those Christians who doesn’t think I’m a Christian, so I’m not sure she cares if I pray.) But should it bother us, or encourage us, if we thought if a political leader was praying for divine guidance?
Take Romney out of the equation. Consider Harry Reid. I have a feeling he prays over his job. Does that bother us? What kind of answers do we think Harry Reid receives to his prayers? Wouldn’t those be the same types of answers Mitt Romney (or Orrin Hatch, or Jon Huntsman, or Chris Cannon) would receive? Is there a level of spiritual personal revelation that an LDS politician from either side of the aisle can receive?
Comment by queuno — December 7, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
queuno, I think you’ve hit at the crux of the matter. The majority of U.S. citizens do claim some type of religion and belief in deity. So I’m sure that those politicians who actively pray often pray about the political issues over which they preside. I would assume the problem comes down to interpretation, both by that leader and those who follow him/her. And as we know, it can sometimes be incredibly difficult to distinguish between our own thoughts/wishes/beliefs etc. and those of God–especially when we believe that God is already on our side.
I guess what would comfort me most to hear from a politician is that they have thought a lot about such and such issue, and sincerely believe they are doing the right thing regardless of party platforms, constituencies, etc. That however, will probably never happen.
Comment by Lessie — December 7, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
ECS,
You know what I mean.
I guess if I had to guess it would be that you don’t like Bush or his policies, so he must be a bad person.
Comment by Jacob J — December 7, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
once again. i have no problem with politicians, or anybody else, praying for the american people or even for insight into their actions. i do have a problem with politicians using god as an excuse for their actions, and using supposed revelation from god as a “no-touch” label for their actions.
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Jacob J - nope. Guess again.
madhosewife - seriously.
Comment by ECS — December 7, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Lemon Drop,
My pleasure!!!
Comment by John Dehlin — December 7, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
John Dehlin,
You don’t see distinction between Clinton, Bush and Romney’s christian sincerety? I don’t even like Romney and I can see it. Clinton attended his weekly services but had an extra-marital affair. Bush claims Jesus saved him but ends up being a war monger who values loyalty within his own circle than he does honesty. Romney served a full time mission and has remained active in his church since. The worst I can say about him is that he’s a little too conservative for my taste. Gee, I can say that about a lot of my Mormon friends and family. I dislike Romney’s politics but aside from looking in to the man’s soul, all I have to gauge his sincerity is what he actually does with his time. Again, sorry for the jack….
Comment by cj douglass — December 7, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
mfranit (35) — what emails? Sob! no emails in my box, broken dryer, broken car, rain rain rain. But saying “Huckabee” is fun. Huckabee Huckabee Huckabee.
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Hee. Somebody get Janet something that works, she’s going around the bend.
Comment by reese — December 7, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Give it time CJ, Im sure we’ll find out just as much bad stuff about Romney if he becomes president, and Im sure he will make colossal blunders just like Bush. I’m sure you wouldn’t see a difference in Romney’s christian sincerity either if he didn’t happen to be your same religion.
Comment by veritas — December 7, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Chandelle, just to be clear, I think you’ve articulated your position with total clarity and don’t think you’re bigoted at all. I was referring to the pundits and candidates and advisors and journalists etc. etc. etc. Who harp on and on about reformed egyptian and temple rites while making no comments about wafers turning into the body of Christ or how the trinity is really one person.
For years I’ve really enjoyed reading Slate magazine, but so far this year they’ve run four or five pieces extremely critical of mormonism, (including one by that *%&^(&%%$ Christopher Hitchens where he calls the church a spooky cult) while offering no counterbalancing opinion or similar criticism of other faiths. I’ve never been the type to stomp off in a huff because the media hurt my delicate feelings, but I’m finding myself nearly there. That’s what smacks of religious bigotry to me.
Comment by reese — December 7, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
just heard an NPR piece on the increasing role faith plays in american politics, and how different that is from other developed democracies around the world.
Comment by G — December 7, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
and i am so sick and tired of all my extended family talking about how the president has to be christian (and hopefully a ‘mormon christian’ next year) because in the book of mormon it prophesied that america would fall if it abandoned Christ.
Comment by G — December 7, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
veritas,
actually I’m harder on Mormons than I am most other religions (big brother sindrome). I’m simply wondering what Dehlin’s criteria for sincerity is. On paper, as a Mormon(not as a politician), Romney looks better than most.
Comment by cj douglass — December 7, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
I just told someone at work that it is entirely possible that Romney may not take the state of Utah because he is not conservative enough for them…
Comment by Josette — December 7, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
I have nothing more to say on this thread, except that I really like my new alias.
Comment by madhousewife — December 7, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Sorry Josette but I don’t give the voters in Utah that much credit. ~ouch~
Comment by cj douglass — December 7, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
@G: “because in the book of mormon it prophesied that america would fall if it abandoned Christ.”
Wait, the Book of Mormon specifically mentions America? I’m sorry I’m confused. I grew up Mormon but never heard of it a) mentioning the US by name and b) being abandoned if we ignore Christ. I mean I’m sure it says that like a nation will fall into wickedness without a god-fearin’ leader… but were you just exagerrating G??
Comment by lemon drop — December 7, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
i know a whole lotta mormons who are waving the flag for romney because of some thing about a mormon riding in on a white horse to save the constitution when it’s hanging by a thread, or something like that. they think getting romney in there will fulfill prophesy. is that what you’re referring to, G?
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
reese (47) HUCKABEEEEEE!!! JESUS WANTS ME FOR S SUNBEAM! Lions and tigers and candidates, oh my stinkin’ broken appliances it was so much better when i lived off the grid and expected no modern convenience white horse prophecy? oh yeah, that…wait, I want a pony. HUCKABEEE!
Your prophecy, at least, is fulfilled
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
that’s right, the white horse prophecy.
um…are you ok, janet? do you need a visitor? or a valium?
Comment by chandelle — December 7, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
I’ve heard of the white horse thing, the SL Tribune did a fluff piece on it in the summer sometime. I’m still confused.
Comment by lemon drop — December 7, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Chandelle, I really am fine. Just a bit slap happy from cabin fever (and the lack of a real cabin in which to experience said cabin fever). I’m enjoying everyone else’s comments but had nothing substantive to offer, so I just decided to be silly.
I listened to NPR’s discussion on the Romney speech and thought they softballed him a bit, actually. They did note that he authored his own speech, which impressed me. Though I found his elision of certain aspects of religious history troubling in its misrepresentation of religion in public life, the whole thing wasn’t a bad bit of rhetoric. I’d have liked his father better, however. From what I’ve read the guy never waffled. I don’t mind thoughtful opinion changes (because as Emerson told us, consistency is the hobgloblin of little minds) but utilitarian waffling bugs me. Also, his dad seemed quite adept at applying religious *values* to politics without entirely conflating religion *with* politics.
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
John Dehlin–I should’ve thanked you for the shout out on all those names of people I respect. I wish I’d known Lowell Bennion–just knowing one of his grandsons and hearing stories about him from the grandkid and from Gene made me want to meet him. Anyone who answers the phone, “How can I be of help?” rocks my world. And most mentions of Gene make me happy ;). What a deeply sweet, good man.
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
lemon drop: crap… your gonna make me find the reference?
I’ll see if I can find the verse they are talking about.
(I do know it doesn’t say “America”… just implies this nation… but I’ll stop talking until I find the reference)
Comment by G — December 7, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
okay, I think this is it: Ether 2:7-10
stuff about how whoever possess this promised land should serve God or be swept off it.
Comment by G — December 7, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
It doesn’t bother me that anybody prays over their job (or dissertation, or parenting decisions, or anything else). It bothers me when they use their faith to make decisions which have wide-spread ramifications for all of us. I’ll use an Australian example, Tony Abbott, who was until about two weeks ago the Minister for Health. He is also staunchly Catholic, and as the Minister for Health, tried to block the introduction of the morning-after pill and RU-486, because of his views on abortion. There was no legal or medical basis for his stance; he was quite open about the fact that it was his religious beliefs influencing his public decisions. I think that’s wrong.
Comment by Quimby — December 7, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
G–it’s not in the text itself, it’s in the chapter’s prefatory note to 1 Nephi 13. Or at least I think that’s what you’re referencing…..the chapter heading combined with the text of the chapter’s text could lead one to your relative’s conclusion.
Comment by Janet — December 7, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Janet- ya, I bet they use that one too…
Comment by G — December 7, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Sorry - baby waking up from nap meant I wasn’t able to finish my thought -
To keep with the above example of a Catholic and abortion, if it was the general consensus of the community that RU 486 or the morning after pill should not be legal, I wouldn’t think that Tony Abbott did anything wrong in his opposition. But that wasn’t the general consensus of the community; and politicians are elected to serve all of the people, not just their religious leaders. So when a politician uses his faith to make decisions which are contrary to the general consensus of the community - I’ve got a problem with that.
Comment by Quimby — December 7, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
Thank you G, Janet too. Very helpful. Those verses were really insightful. I guess the “promised land” does equal the US… but it could be like Mexico or Canada too I suppose. It’s a lot to wrap my brain around.
My parents are so into the idea of Romney, but it’s strange to me - or sits strangely with me for some reason. It seems to me that Mormons wouldn’t want one of their own in the White House because history has shown how corrupt that position can get- and how God is the ultimate law, the law of the land is not. Seems very contradictory. Not to mention the early church was very anti-government but that is another story.
This blog always gets me a thinkin!
Comment by lemon drop — December 7, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Ooh, and I got the best comment number too. How did you guys rig that??!
Comment by lemon drop — December 7, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
I thought the white horse thing was something another Republican candidate’s campaign made up to make Mormons look kooky
Comment by Quimby — December 7, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Quimby, it’s been around for a long time, but I’m not sure that there is any scriptural (sp?) basis to it.
Comment by moddy — December 7, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
I just looked up the trib article on pro quest From June 4, 2007 called “Is Romney the Stuff of Mormon Legend??”
anyways, the article is too long to paste here, but I thought the text box following the piece was funny:
‘White Horse Prophecy’
In the last days, the U.S. Constitution will “hang by a thread” and a Mormon will ride in on a metaphorical white horse to save it.
* Background: The story was hearsay - supposedly uttered by LDS Church founder Joseph Smith - recorded in a Mormon diary.
* Fact: LDS Church leaders have declared it is false.
* Reaction: Mitt Romney doesn’t believe the legend.
“I don’t think the White Horse Prophecy is fair to bring up at all. It’s been rejected by every church leader that has talked about it. It has nothing to do with anything.”
Comment by lemon drop — December 7, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
I don’t remember him using the term “white horse”, but when Bo Grits ran for president he did talk about the constitution hanging by a thread
Comment by G — December 7, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
uh, here is a better link for Bo Gritz (have to spell it right!)
Comment by G — December 7, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
(my folks were huge Gritz fans)
Comment by G — December 7, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
I think it’s great if politicians use prayer and personal revelation as a tool. But if we’re going to allow them that right to pray, we’d better concede to them the *privilege* to follow the promptings they receive (although I agree that giving all the credit or blame to God goes too far — be responsible for your own decisions and say “this is my decision”.)
About a year ago, I was working with a Mormon headhunter out of SLC (BYU graduate) about a position. The fact that he and I were both Mormon and BYU graduates was something we’d talked about a few times. The job was good, the pay was good; we would have had to move to San Antonio (great place to visit; not so sure about living there). As it turned out, my wife and I spent a lot of time in prayer and in the temple, and we felt we received a very clear answer *not* to take the job. What irked me was when the headhunter criticized my decision, saying that I needed to sit back and re-analyze the offer and make “the logical decision”. Sorry, but the answer I got to prayer trumps the “logical” decision, and it kind of ticked me off to have to explain that to another Mormon.
The past 2 years have shown we were right to do as we did. But at the time, it was purely illogical, from almost every perspective (career-wise, financial-wise, etc.).
I think lost in all this speech is what Romney didn’t say. He basically said that he wouldn’t take orders from SLC. Romney did NOT say that he wouldn’t use his religious beliefs to inform some of his decisions, some of the time. He may opt to make a decision that he feels is best for the country that SLC might disapprove of. He might also make a decision fueled by his own belief and value system. To say that he can’t do that is ridiculous and misses the point.
Comment by queuno — December 7, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
ECS, #27, yes, he does have a direct line. Here’s the video.
Comment by Ann — December 7, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
My DH dumped someone because she voted for Bo Gritz.
Comment by Ann — December 7, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
Thinking out loud, and more pot-stirring than opining, but here goes:
Quimby (and others), I understand and mostly agree with your distaste for government leaders who claim religiosity as an acceptable basis for public decisions. But what about if that government official is “right?” I mean, we believe that we are the only true and living church on the earth, correct? And if Romney were elected and began pushing/mandating/whatever certain policies that were not popular, but were in accordance with Gospel principles, would your offense be because you didn’t agree with the principles, or would it be because he (Romney, or any other LDS government leader) was essentially robbing people of their free agency? Or would it simply be because he wasn’t honoring his oath to serve all people?
Comment by Teresa — December 7, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
If you’re making decisions only based on your faith and not based on pluralist principles of inclusion and what is best for people as a whole because of some mandate from God, I’d say I have a pretty huge problem with that. I don’t think that is serving the people.
Comment by lemon drop — December 7, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
That is called theocratic tyranny.
Comment by veritas — December 8, 2007 @ 2:39 am
Sorry, G’s parents, the only way I’d vote for someone named Bo is if his last name is Duke.
Teresa, I’d be offended for both reasons you gave. As a Mormon, I’d be offended because he was denying people their free agency; as a person who is passionate about politics, I’d be offended because he was not living up to his oath to serve all people. My feeling is, you have the right to not do something that would not violate your own conscience; but if you feel serving in a public office would violate your own conscience, you have the responsibility to not choose to put yourself up for that office.
Comment by Quimby — December 8, 2007 @ 2:50 am
Ann - that is hilarious!! Thanks for sharing. I love the “omniscientist” line. Awesome!
This BYU compilation of quotes shows that Ezra Taft Benson and Harold B. Lee, both Presidents of the Church repeated the
“constitution hanging by a thread” theory in General Conference.
At the end of the day, if God wants something done - abortion laws overturned, Iraq invaded - He/She doesn’t need the POTUS to do it. God can do anything He/She wants.
madhousewife - sorry for the misspelling, but I think “madhosewife” is kind of cute
Comment by ECS — December 8, 2007 @ 6:08 am
Chandelle–Wow! You always state my opinions so much better than I could! We’re either both insane or both geniuses.
I wasn’t a big fan of Romney’s speech, either, really because of its exclusionary aspects. I don’t see how it is necessary at all for a leader of this country to be Christian. Since the office is supposed to be a representative office, shouldn’t the president be whoever best represents the POLITICAL beliefs of the people. In that case, I believe religion would be a sidenote.
I’m not a Mitt Romney fan, but I have to admit, a major reason I dislike him so much is because now when I tell people I’m Mormon I have to explain that I’m not scary-conservative and I have to explain about all the “Mormon myths” that are now in the public sphere thanks to his campaign. It’s stupid that I have to tell people that Romney is just a Mormon, not the representative for ALL Mormons. Plus I’m sick of hearing questions about my underwear. Since when is that appropriate?
Comment by AYW — December 8, 2007 @ 8:12 am
i went through a period, as a member, when i believed that libertarianism was the most appropriate political belief for mormons. trying to rob others of their agency by mandating the mormon brand of morality was supposedly “satan’s plan.” i came to this thought process when, in cedar hills, UT, where my in-laws live, which is 95% mormon or higher, they were trying to pass a law that stores would not be open on sunday, and liquor could not be sold at all. my in-laws were all for it, and when it didn’t pass, they said it was because “too many people wanted to buy drink and shop on sundays,” said in an extremely disparaging tone. that seemed pretty unlikely given the demographic. i ventured the idea that perhaps some mormons didn’t think it was appropriate to apply their rules to everybody else. my in-laws thought that was ridiculous, “because it’s right!” that got me thinking about passing laws that are “right” for a very specific religious group, and how, in the mormon church, agency, free choice, is the cornerstone of the religion, and how ironic it is that so many mormons fight so hard to apply their rules to everyone else, and how they feel that’s very righteous when, of course, applying the same rules to everybody, not allowing people to make their own decisions, was “satan’s plan.” so, were i still a mormon, YES, i would have a massive problem with romney attempting to push through legislation based on mormon morality, because it restricts others’ choices. what’s right for me, what i believe is right, may not be what somebody else believes is right, and i can’t really believe that my rightness is more righteous, because it’s so subjective. “my god told me this, and you SAY that your god “told” you that…but i’m right dammit!” never flew right with me, and that’s in part why i didn’t last in the church. i believe that everybody makes their own choices based on what they feel to be right, and everybody’s understanding of what is right is equally relevant to each person, and it would be completely wrong for me to put my own interpretation of rightness on others and restrict their understanding of what’s right and also to restrict their action accordingly. i’m not a libertarian, politically, but the essential idea of allowing each person the liberty to make their own choices, without restricting them based on MY choices, makes perfect sense to me. and that’s part of the reason why i think it might be a serious problem to have a mormon president, or anybody who felt that it was not only his opportunity but his duty to push legislation that was in accordance with his theology.
Comment by chandelle — December 8, 2007 @ 9:12 am
ok, so my husband just pointed out that while agency is supposedly a pretty big deal, in practice, obedience is much more important, so maybe i just pulled all of that crap out of my butt (so to speak) and it means nothing at all to ya’lls. sigh. i’m going to go make muffins now.
Comment by chandelle — December 8, 2007 @ 9:20 am
I’m curious how a “moral” athiest would end his state of the union address:
“May science bless America!”
or
“May cosmic randomness and evolution bless America!”
hmmm…
Comment by sofia — December 8, 2007 @ 9:52 am
sigh.
a) evolution is not random.
b) any “moral” atheist (as you term it) would probably recognize that most people believe in god and pay homage to that respect, just like we “moral” atheists who continue to bow our heads during prayers.
funny, for some of us, god doesn’t need to tell us to be moral or threaten us with damnation if we’re not. and funny, it’s completely possible for us to be respectful and honoring of religion, unlike so many, ya know, religions.
Comment by chandelle — December 8, 2007 @ 10:26 am
hm. were i the president, i would probably say something like, “peace and blessings to everyone” instead of “god bless america.” i know, it’s so offensive.
Comment by chandelle — December 8, 2007 @ 10:31 am
here here AYW,
God help us all if Mitt gets elected.
Comment by cj douglass — December 8, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Why is it wrong for a religious person to make decisions or support legislation based on his moral values but not for a secularist or atheist to make decisions or pass legislation based on his moral values? This is assuming, of course, that secularists and atheists are capable of morality–which I think has been established here. Why is moral reasoning less valid when it is informed by religious belief? Why is it less constitutional? What makes an atheist’s motivations so much purer? We’ve had 43 Christian presidents thusfar (as Jon Stewart pointed out), many of them religious to varying degrees, many of whom claimed that they prayed to God over challenges they faced in office, and up until #43 I don’t think this was characterized as creeping theocracy.
Are we really concerned about decisions based on individual moral values, or are we concerned about decisions based on values that we personally don’t share? A president is supposed to represent all people, but that means he makes decisions based on what (he believes) will be best for the entire country–not that he makes decisions that reflect the opinions of everyone in the country. (That last thing, incidentally, is impossible.) To this extent, every president, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, is going to be placing restrictions on people’s choices, i.e. “taking away their agency.”
A devoutly religious president could do the following:
* Push legislation restricting abortion because God hates abortion.
* Refuse to enter a war because God hates war.
* Push legislation instituting a universal, single-payer health care system because God wants all his children to have health coverage.
An atheist president could do any of the following:
* Appoint a Supreme Court justice who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade because he is a committed federalist.
* Refuse to enter a war because he is an isolationist.
* Push legislation that eliminates federal welfare programs because he is not only a committed federalist, but he thinks overreliance on government is weakening the country’s economy and the morality of its citizens.
(Yes, this is a science fiction story, but so is the scenario where America becomes a theocracy because the president loves Jesus just a little too much.)
None of these presidents is representing all people. How do you decide which one is doing what’s best for the country, and which one is just forcing his morality on others?
Comment by madhousewife — December 8, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
madhousewife, part of what I love about religion is that it is not rational. There is probably nothing less rational than believing in God. But when it comes right down to it, I want policy to be decided on the basis of what is rational, and not on the basis of faith. Perhaps that is a short-coming in my own faith; I prefer to think it is because I recognise that, even within Mormonism, the issue of what God wants is such a complex, complicated one that we could never reach a consensus. I know Mormons who are pro-choice, Mormons who are pro-life, Mormons who are pro-war, Mormons who are anti-war; and the one thing all of us have in common is we believe our opinions are most in keeping with the will of the Lord. So I think we are better off going with rational thought.
Sure, people of rational thought can still have different opinions on things - but I believe it is preferable to base decisions on rational thought than on faith for two reasons. First, it’s easier to discuss and debate rational thought than faith. If I say to you, “I have a firm testimony that the sky is purple. I know this is so, because the Lord told me,” you can’t respond with science, because I’ll just keep saying, “But the Lord told me it’s purple.” There’s really no way you can discuss or debate the idea with me. And second, if I give faith as a motivation, it can be seen as just a cheap shot at you - “But Heavenly Father told me the sky is purple, and if you just had enough faith and enough knowledge to ask Him yourself, with a pure heart and real intent, he’d tell you the same thing. You’re just not righteous enough to recieve this eternal truth.”
Comment by Quimby — December 8, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
But this is easy to answer. Whoever is doing what I want them to do is doing what is best for the country.
Comment by Quimby — December 8, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Funny, that’s the same way I would answer.
Going back to the reason v. faith issue, though–there’s a reason I said “informed by religious beliefs” and not “dictated by religious dogma.” Everyone (hopefully) makes decisions informed by both reason and values. If not, he would be a machine and not a human being.
A president who says, “We must establish policy x because God told me it must be so (period),” is not arguing from reason or values. And to my knowledge, no POTUS in history has actually said such a thing, so that’s not what we’re talking about, is it? If a president is human (and I think that requirement is implied in our Constitution), he’s going to have values that cannot be accounted for strictly by reason alone. Obviously there are positions that can be supported logically but are not morally sound. Moral soundness is subjective.
So a president says, “We should have federally funded, universal health care because it is wrong that we should let anyone go without medical treatment because he can’t afford it.” Is that an appropriate justification for raising taxes and creating a new government program? It’s not based on reason, after all. It’s based on a value. Why does the president believe it’s wrong to let sick people go untreated (or enter bankruptcy in order to get treated)? Maybe it’s because he thinks Jesus wants people to take care of each other (not a huge leap of logic). Maybe the thought of people suffering makes him sad. Ultimately, how much does it matter to you *how* he arrived at his values? Isn’t what ultimately matters that he holds values that you share?
Can you argue persuasively for a policy strictly from a basis of reason? Can you make a moral argument without appealing to someone’s values? I’d appreciate examples.
P.S. to Janet - I’m glad to learn someone else out there appreciates Mike Huckabee’s name as much as I do. HUCKABEE!
Comment by madhousewife — December 8, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Okay, I misunderstood your question. If we’re talking universal health care, I actually think it’s quite possible for POTUS to argue that having universal health care is more cost-effective than the alternative. In fact I would prefer it if POTUS listed the rationale behind universal health care, and then, as icing on the universal health care cupcake, said, “And besides, it’s the right thing to do.” I don’t think morality should be the first criteria for making a decision. It’ll come into it at some point; but if POTUS isn’t able to mount a convincing socioeconomic argument, the morality is null.
Comment by Quimby — December 8, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
It’s possible to argue that universal health care is more cost-effective than some alternatives, but probably not that it’s more cost-effective than *any* alternative. Universal health may be more cost-effective if the alternative is paying for people’s last-chance emergency care. It’s probably not more cost-effective than refusing health care altogether to anyone who can’t pay for it. No decent person wants to argue *that* alternative, but that’s my point. The moral argument is not just the icing on the cake; ultimately it’s the only reason you’re having the conversation in the first place.
Reconsider the war scenario. If we’d intervened in Rwanda several years ago, it would have cost money and lives. Our leaders did the political calculus and decided that Rwanda wasn’t worth the money and lives, so we did nothing. That may very well have been the rational decision, but was it the correct moral decision? Similarly, what non-altruistic reason do we have to intervene in Darfur? None, I suppose, or someone would have done it by now. A devoutly religious pacifist or an secular isolationist would make the same decision in that scenario, but for different reasons–and they would either both be right or both be wrong; in the end, it’s your actions that count–the thought process you used to get there becomes an interesting (or not) footnote in history. This is why I say values are more relevant than religiosity or lack thereof.
I actually do think that morality should be the first criteria for making a decision–but what’s morally correct in a given situation isn’t always cut-and-dried, and often you have to choose the lesser of two evils (or the greater of two goods). This is where reason can inform values and vice versa. An atheist and a devout religious person can share the same values and similar reasoning.
Comment by madhousewife — December 9, 2007 @ 1:52 am
Rationality and morality bleed into each other frequently. For example, it would have been “rational” to invade Rwanda (or Darfur) if the U.S. government valued African lives as much as it valued Iraqi oil or finding a scapegoat for 9-11.
Is this kind of a psychological Machiavellianism of “the end justifies the means”? For example, would we be okay with electing a racist or sexist president as long as he or she didn’t enact racist or sexist policies?
Comment by ECS — December 9, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
that’s a fine question, ECS, especially when seen in the light of the many people who say that the church may have been racist at one point, but it doesn’t matter, because they accept blacks now. few current members would point to brigham young’s comments about, for example, interracial couples being struck down on the spot, as indications of a racist church that may not have sloughed off its ethnocentric origins. most people i know say that it’s irrelevant what was done in the past in the church - what’s relevant is what is done now, and even in terms of what is done now, it’s irrelevant if it might be changed in the future or if we don’t understand why it is so now (such as with considerations of women & priesthood). so i think it extremely unlikely that many members, at least, would consider the means over the end, especially within a church that could be accused, even in the present, of racism and sexism. i think that, to a church whose only earthly consideration is the present, the means (racism, misogyny, murder, and everything in between) are considered insignificant when considered against the end (potential exaltation).
Comment by chandelle — December 9, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
oh my goodness. i’m working on a really long report for school and i realize that the above is pretty much unintelligible. just ignore me and carry on.
Comment by chandelle — December 9, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
For the love of god please do not donate or vote for
Romney…and im saying this as a mormon.
Comment by Midian — December 9, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
I’m not sure that’s the case. If we want to be brutally market-driven, refusing care=more people dying=less of a work-force, (particularly less of a lower-end minimum-wage type work force, since poor people tend to be the ones who can’t pay for health care)=bad for business.
Comment by Quimby — December 9, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
This is assuming, of course, that no other variables will be affected by such a policy (which would most likely take the form of not having laws against refusing care to those who can’t afford it, rather than making a law that you may not provide free health care, or pay for anyone else’s health care–that would be a strange law indeed). My point is that this is all speculative, whichever direction you go, which is why morality can actually be a
reliable basis for making decisions. Obviously reason and pragmatics must inform those decisions, because most decisions involve conflicting (good) values–and good intentions are a poor excuse for doing something that ends up hurting more than helping..
Well, let’s see. Would you believe a person who said, “I think my race is superior to other races, but I promise I won’t enact racist policies while in office”? I’m not sure what the advantage of such candour would be, or what your motivation for voting for an outspoken racist would be, if you didn’t want him to enact racist policies. I’ll willingly suspend my disbelief for a minute and imagine that I believe this racist who promises not to enact racist policies if elected. I still wouldn’t vote for him because in addition to making policy (in the limited role a president has), a president is also a moral leader–and by this I don’t mean that he sets an example by not sinning, but if he espouses beliefs that are odious to me, of course I’m not going to vote for him. I don’t want a racist representing my country any more than the next person does. (This reminds me a little of when my vegan friend used to get asked by devil’s advocates if she’d eat a bug, and her response was, “Would YOU?”)
If we’re talking, though, about a president who is secretly racist, who neither publicly espouses racism nor practices racial discrimination in any forum–well, I’m not sure what the point of the question is. I have to judge people by what they do, not by what I suspect they’re thinking secretly.
Comment by madhousewife — December 9, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
so, madhousewife, with romney saying, “i believe my religion is superior than other religions [ok, he’s not actually saying that, but if he’s active and faithful it probably goes without saying], but i promise i won’t enact mormon policies while in office,” does that make you more inclined, or less inclined, to vote for him? sort of like, why would you vote for an outspoken mormon if you don’t want him to enact mormon policies? or is it not even remotely the same to you?
Comment by chandelle — December 9, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Chandelle, just curious, what would constitute a “Mormon policy”? Just about the only things I can think of would require changes to the Constitution (eg, bring back prohibition) and I can’t see that happening. FWIW I don’t like Romney and I hope he wins the nomination because then the general election will definitely go to the Democrats; but I’m just not sure there are any policies that are uniquely “Mormon” that wouldn’t also appeal to Evangelicals and other conservatives.
Comment by Quimby — December 9, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
chandelle - Outspoken racist vs. outspoken Mormon…hmmm…yes, not remotely the same.
This is the thing - I would expect people to support policies that were consistent with their values. I can’t say I’d vote for a Mormon over an evangelical or a Jew or an atheist unless I know what their values are, and I determine their values as best I can by what they do, in addition to what they say. I think the productiveness of this conversation has run its course, as I am now defending my reasoning behind not voting for a racist whilst still being willing to vote for a religious person. I honestly can’t have this conversation. My brain will explode.
FWIW Romney is not necessarily my candidate either. I don’t have a candidate yet, but Romney’s not on my short list. He’s not on the list of people I’ve ruled out, either, but his candidacy hasn’t inspired me thusfar. His favorable qualities have nothing to do particularly with his religion. I would feel the same about him if he were a Methodist. (His unfavorables don’t have anything to do particularly with his religion either, as far as I can tell. He just doesn’t do it for me. Except that he is good-looking. I don’t usually vote for candidates based on their looks, though. Unless they’re really hot. And not racists.) I wouldn’t vote for Harry Reid on a bet, and it has nothing to do with his religion. I don’t agree with his policies (and by implication, his values–yes, it is possible for “good” Mormons to have different values). Also, he seems like kind of a *****.
A better illustration, I guess, is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I don’t doubt the sincerity of their religious convictions, and I’m sure their politics are a natural outgrowth of those convictions, but we don’t have the same values, or rather, we don’t prioritize our values in the same way. (I’m sure I have values in common with both–as we are all Americans raised in Christian, western Democratic traditions–but we have vastly different expressions of those values.)
Comment by madhousewife — December 10, 2007 @ 12:22 am
good points to both of you. i was completely incoherent today; please forgive me. between my report, work, and fMh, i need a computer break in the worst way.
Comment by chandelle — December 10, 2007 @ 1:38 am
Perhaps this is difficult to believe now, but I’m sure it was a perfectly reasonable position seventy five or even fifty years ago. Now we have candidates saying that they are personally against abortion, but they won’t do anything to upset Roe v. Wade. Another interesting twist is candidates saying homosexuals shouldn’t be discriminated against, but then stating they don’t support gay marriage.
In other words, it’s fairly common for candidates to say they believe X but they won’t force X on others.
So, you’re saying that it does matter what the candidates believe, but it matters more what they do? I agree with that.
Comment by ECS — December 10, 2007 @ 8:17 am
Actually, I think this would have been an equally odd political choice even 50 years ago, when racist policies were already in place and a candidate was much more likely to moderate his civil rights position in order to appeal to mainstream Americans, who tended to be suspicious of anyone who wanted to radically alter the status quo. Similarly Romney’s speech last week was an attempt to reassure Americans that he shares their values, *including* the value of religious freedom–thus implying that therefore he will not force Mormonism or a “Mormon agenda” (whatever that would be–anti-trust lawsuits against Starbucks?) on people. So yes, it’s common for candidates to say they believe X but they won’t force X on others, but only when X is relevant to voter concerns. I don’t believe most American voters are hung up on having a Christian president in order to enact specifically “Christian” policies. (Such as…?) I think most Christian conservatives would enthusiastically vote for a similarly conservative Jew over a Christian liberal. The overwhelming majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, care much more about values than they do about theology (in politics, that is). Even Americans who feel strongly about the role of religious values in public life don’t want a candidate who’s going to force his theology on them; similarly they don’t care that much about a shared theology, either, as evidenced by the fact that Christians with vastly different theologies get elected by the general public all the time.
It’s true that religious conservatives are still suspicious of atheists, but it’s mostly a theoretical (not insignificant, but theoretical) suspicion, as openly avowed atheists are rare in American politics. It’s totally inappropriate, IMO, to ask a candidate whether or not he believes in God. It’s similarly inappropriate, I think, to ask a candidate whether or not he “believes” in evolution. It’s just irrelevant. Not irrelevant, of course, to people who think a candidate who accepts biblical creationism is necessarily insane and therefore unfit for office–but for those of us with a little perspective, yes, irrelevant. (However, it is not inappropriate to ask a candidate if he favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in science classes. It’s a weird question to ask a presidential candidate, as this really shouldn’t be a federal issue–but insofar as people make it a federal issue, it’s not an irrelevant question.)
This is all my long-winded way of reiterating that I care more about a candidate’s values than his specific theological beliefs, and I judge what a candidate values mainly by his actions, i.e. how he expresses those values, not by trying to look into his heart. My God-powers are a little sketchy in that regard.
Comment by madhousewife — December 10, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Crap, that was even more verbose than I thought it was.
Comment by madhousewife — December 10, 2007 @ 11:08 am
“Anyway, I just don’t understand why people are so hyped up on electing a “Christian” to the White House. Its current Christian occupant isn’t doing such a stellar job following the Golden Rule or getting the right answers to WWJD”
I don’t think we need a leader that is Christian, we need a great leader that is competent and will represent the American people, we’re a diverse nation belonging to many faith.
Comment by Holly — December 13, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Its late, I’m a Texas liberal and Romney does not have my vote.
It’ll be a cold day in Hades when Huckabee has my vote. Cute name tho. Baptist in Texas tried to save my soul from a “mormon cult” I joined back in the 70’s.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7357.html
I wish I may, I wish I might,
Have Bill Richardson as the Prez
Goodnight…
Comment by KFJ — December 13, 2007 @ 12:33 am