Friday, December 7, 2007

Mitt's Speech Thursday

Just a few words about Mitt Romney's speech Thursday,

As a Southern evangelical Christian woman who believes Mormonism is a strange cult (are the prophets Joseph Smith and Mohammad really all that different, if you take jihad out of the picture?), I nonetheless would have no problem from a personal perspective if Mitt Romney ends up being elected President next year.

That's not to say I'll ever necessarily vote for Mitt. It's not to say I wouldn't either. Rather it means that I won't get all wigged out and move to New Zealand if he wins.

While Mitt's speech was designed to address and sway one target audience, and one audience only Thursday----conservative Christians like me who are supposedly concerned, even alarmed at his Mormonism---in the end it left me extremely cool. And relieved at the same time.

Cool in the sense that he made a straw man out of his candidacy being a referendum on religious tolerance in America today, which I don't buy for even a minute.Religious tolerance in this country has reached high art and at times has gone over the edge as far as I'm concerned. And relieved because the idea that he might talk about any doctrinal tenants of Mormonism and the details of his personal beliefs in the political arena seemed inappropriate and completely uncalled for to me. In fact I cringed when I first heard he was going to make a religious speech of any kind.

Frankly, I don't think he should have ever made the speech in the first place. And the fact that Mitt thought it either necessary or advantageous to the forward movement of his campaign, as JFK once did, gives me pause.

No matter how much he, or outspoken evangelicals, try to make religious tolerance an issue for Mitt, in the end his candidacy for me will either sink or swim on the issues of homeland/ border security, immigration reform, the War in Iraq(to a lesser extent), Roe vs. Wade, tax and health care reform. I also reserve the right to discern which candidate I think has the most character, integrity and ability to lead this nation wisely in the next four years. While I would always prefer someone who's just like me, in the end, I reserve the right to vote for a Church going candidate or an agnostic/atheist if I so choose.

Mitt is accomplished and experienced enough that he can stand on his own two feet as a candidate and not be judged to any great degree by his Mormon faith.

If, however, it were one of the Flying Imams running for President, God forbid, then that would be a completely different story and one in which I'd vote for a healthy dose of religious intolerance and righteous indignation, whatever that says about me.

Many of my evangelical brothers and sisters may have a totally different take on Mitt's religious affiliations and beliefs. They certainly have the right and responsibility in this country to sort if out for themselves, as I do, and base their support on whatever criteria they deem important to them.

So let the campaign continue. And let Mitt put the mantle of religious intolerance behind him and win or lose, as he will. I like the way Tony Blair recently stated his religion was a source of comfort and inspiration while he was PM of England. But he kept it to himself for fear of being considered a religious nut.

Let's see if Mitt can do the same. And Mike Huckabee too.


Speaking of the flying imams, a man who has known these clerics for years, tells it like he sees it and puts their behavior on and with U.S. Airways in well thought out perspective. These imams---to no one's great surprise---have been honing their victim consciousness for a long, long time, and waiting for a moment in history when they can make a public display of their gleeful victimhood. My response to such nonesense? They need a good dose of religious intolerance and righteous indignation from me. Who do these clowns think they are, anyway?


Anonymous said...

What Romney did with his so-called “religion speech” the other day was try to get ahead of the curve. And he’s actually been quite successful. Mostly due to the fact that he pays image agencies millions to feed the media the angle that his campaign wants to present.

In doing so, they’ve done a marvelous job blowing smoke. And they’ve angled it so that “conventional Christians” are made to seem like bigots for not accepting that Romney is a “real Christian.”

This is a beautiful deflection. But what is it a deflection from? It’s a deflection from Mormon doctrine, which says that THEY are the only true Christians! Joe Smith taught that all Christianity as presented thus far has been wrong. He rewrote whole sections of the Bible, and introduced an entirely different doctrine. And filled in the details with a story of how Jews escaped to the New World in 580 BC. And began to create warring kingdoms in America. God then cursed the “bad” group of Jews by giving them dark skin, and they are the American Indians.

Yes my friends, you heard that right! Mormons believe that American Indians are “cursed Jews.” Literally not one single piece of archeological evidence has ever surfaced that any of the kingdoms ever existed. Not a single stone from a single building. Nothing.

But Mormonism teaches that this is the REAL Christianity! Mormons refer to all non-Mormons as “gentiles,” and consider them spiritual heathens.

So it’s actually Romney that must answer whether HE thinks Huckabee is a “real Christian,” not the other way around.

But Romney’s multi-million dollar PR machine has turned the whole thing on it’s ear.

Anonymous said...

Again, much, if not all, of what you say about Mormonism is correct, but for Romney and Huckabee to argue about who's the real Christian is absurd and a complete waste of time.

Ask these men about their stand on appointing judges, Roe vs Wade, making the tax cuts permanent and amnesty for illegals, etc. But to argue religious doctrine in a political campaign---and who has the real thing---is hopeless and puerile, in my opinion.

I still would not foreclose the possibility of voting for him next year---even if I didn't particularly like it for other reasons--especially if he were running against Obama, for instance.

Right now it seems anything could and probably will happen.

Ellen said...

What makes you think Mormonism is any more believeable than Christianity? Just because it is a larger more popular 'group think'?

Romney pitted the 'bad secularists' against 'people with faith.'

In ten years, America has doubled it's number of secularists while the % of christians has decreased by more than 10%. America is far more religious than nations with higher education rankings, particularly Scandanavian countries. Hopefully this trend of secularization coupled with an increase in education will serve to create more international cooperation and less religious divisiveness and conflict. The trend is clear. America needs a leader who leads by reason and rational thought, not faith which is tantamount to the willful abdication of reason. Religious self righteousness is dangerous. I would think humans would have progressed more by now. The correlation with education is unmistakable. The less educated, the more religious.

Anonymous said... may be right, Ellen.

And being religious can, and often does, have absolutely nothing to do with a true and personal relationship with Christ.

However, I digress. Once again, arguing the veracity of Mitt's verses Mike's religion only diverts each of us from what they stand for and how they might handle themselves as president. For that, I look to each of their past records in public service and their family and private sector lives.

Rita Loca said...

I would certainly vote for him over, Obama or Hillary, but truly hope I will have another choice.

A guy wearing HOLY UNDERWEAR 24/7 freaks me out. That is just...strange.

Anonymous said...

oh, had completely forgotten about the Holy Drawers.....ugh!

Bob's Blog said...

Beautiful post! (Maybe because I agree with every word you wrote)!

615_libertarian said...

the speech made me a little more comfortable with him because i know so little about mormanism

Anonymous said...

Mormonism a cult? What exactly is your basis for that? As a Mormon, I find that quite offensive. If you don't think we are Christians in the traditional sense because we have different beliefs about the nature of Christ and don't adhere to the Nicean creed, fine, but to call someone a cult is simply over the line. Heaven's gate, David Koresh's folks - now those were cults. The Mormon curch is 13 million members strong - with many thousand living right here in Tennesee as your neighbors, coworkers, and friends. Am I the only one that can tell the difference between the two? Now we're a cult because we believe a little differently than you do? That's absurd. And you compare Joseph Smith to Mohamed? Come on! They both called themselves prophets, but that's where the similarities end. Say what you will about Smith's teachings, he never advocated violence and went so far as to relocate the Church several times to avoid potential violence with others.

There is so much misinformation about the Mormon church out there. Don't believe all that you've been told by others - especially those who have a vested interest in slowing the growth of the church. You want some honest, straigtforward, unfiltered information, ask a Mormon - I'm sure there are plenty in your community. I'm continually surprised by the amount of sheer hate out there towards us. I don't expect you to agree with the doctrines of my church - all I expect is a little civility and a little less name calling (i.e. 'cult').

BTW, I thought Romney's speech was moving. Almost everyone (Romney supporters and non-Romney supporters alike) I've talked to thought the same. You've got to admit there were some very inspirational moments in that speech. I particularly liked the end bit about Sam Adams.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Jeff, and I hear you talking....calling it is cult is not productive...I stand corrected.

all best to you.