Mitt’s Hour of Power
If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library.
The address was courageous in a way John F. Kennedy's speech to the Baptist ministers was not. Kennedy went to Houston to assure the ministers he agreed with them on virtually every issue where they differed with the Catholic agenda and that his faith would not affect any decision he made as president. He called himself "the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic."
It was like saying: "I happen to be left-handed. I can't help it."
Romney did not truckle. He did not suggest that his faith was irrelevant to the formation of his political philosophy. While declaring, "I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest," he did not back away an inch from his Mormon faith."
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough," said Romney. "They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
If this costs me the presidency, said Romney, so be it.
That is the kind of defiance this country can never hear enough of.
What Romney was saying was: If you so dislike or resent my faith you will not vote for me if I stay true to it, don't vote for me. But that may say more about you than it does about me.
Questioned repeatedly on what he, as a Mormon, believes about Jesus Christ, a matter crucial to evangelicals, Romney replied:
"What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has it own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
Surely that is right.
After defending his own faith, Romney declared himself a fighting ally of traditionalists and conservatives in the culture war against a militant secularism that is hostile to all faiths rooted in supernatural beliefs and that seeks to de-Christianize America.
"(T)he notion of separation of church and state has been taken by some beyond its original meaning," Romney said, "They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in the public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America—the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders—in ceremony and word. He should remain in our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and, during the holiday seasons, Nativity scenes and Menorahs should be welcome in our public places."
Romney understands that while the First Amendment proscribes the establishment of religion, it guarantees the free expression of all religions, even in the public school. Supreme Court, take note. "I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty," said Romney.
This was a tour de force, and it was delivered before perhaps the largest audience Romney will have for any speech before the January caucuses and primaries. It will be the subject of editorials and columns in coming weeks. And it is hard to see how Romney does not benefit hugely from what was a quintessentially "American" address.
With this speech, Romney has thrown on the defensive his main rival in Iowa, Mike Huckabee, the Christians' candidate who, when asked if Mormonism is a cult, left the impression it might well be.
The issues of religious tolerance, what it means to be a Christian in politics, and of secularism versus traditionalism are all now out on the table, and will likely be the social-moral issues on which the race turns between now and January.
To this writer, Romney is on unassailable grounds. Nor is he hurt by the fact that his wife and five children testify eloquently that he is a man of principles who lives by them.
Mike Huckabee's ascendancy and Romney's address defending his faith, refusing to disavow his beliefs and making this a test of tolerance while launching an offensive against secular humanism, tell us that God is back—in the presidential campaign.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
Mitt Romney is a fraud. In thsi day and age, how could a good Christian ever be elected the governor of that moral wasteland?
Mr. Buchanan confuses me at times. He's not shy about writing about our coming day of reckoning for his Creators Syndicate readers, and all of the other details of our current dismal political situation, but then he'll turn right around and write a puff piece for a Massachusetts liberal like Romney. Ok, so he made a good speach about faith - he probably didn't even write it himself. Still, he's as liberal as they come, a flip-flopper, as phoney as a three-dollar bill. There is no good news coming out of the Republican party. Mr. Buchanan himself was the last rightist candidate we will ever see from them.
Romeny's folks had a sit-down with Pat last May, or so reports go, on the 'immigration' issue and what the Right wanted.
Additionally, Pat's Catholicism was considered a reason he could not get more/any support from white evangelicals so perhaps he is projecting.
I do believe Romney is a blank slate so while he would be bad, I can see Pat's tactical angle, though of course Ron Paul is the only serious choice in this race.
I'd also add that I am sure Mr. Buchanan got wind of Huckabee's peeps underminging Brownback's support based on Brownback's Catholic conversion.
None of it is a concern for me. Frankly, I thought this speech was a cynical appeal for donations and nothing more.
Guys, I think Pat talks like this sometimes as he misses having a voice in the Republican party. His past writings show me that he is totally against the Empire, so I am sure he is well aware that Romney is the same kind of statist that we've all come to know from the Republican party since at least 2000 and if not since the mid 60s.
I like Pat but he must now realize there is no voice for Paleos in the modern day Republican party.
To 'this' writer, Romney lost my support the moment he entered the race. For us paleos (be it the conservative or libertarian variety), the best way to look at a candidate should be something akin to "which one is least harmful?". Clearly, Mitt is not that person. At the first debate between (R) candidates, he admitted his support for an assault weapon ban (like the one he personally signed in Taxachusetts) so that already wrote him off. We've all heard/read his past abortionite comments, so basically we should all realize - Mitt will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. Suddenly the anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration and abortionite former guvna of Taxachusetts is an NRA member, pro life and giving Rudy hell for his immigration policies! Laughable!
Oh I want to add - As a traditionalist Catholic, I have serious disagreements on matters of theology with the Mormon Church, but that is the wrong reason to not vote for/support Mitt. I would not support him because if you ask me is a closest leftist Republican who will tell you want to hear.
Re #2:
"Mr. Buchanan confuses me at times."
Of course, Mr. Buchanan writes to please "wide audiences". In one form or another, every professional U.S. politician uses this "method" (just follow what those "presidential candidates" are saying). Statistics at work. The inconsistencies are quite unimportant, the bright indigenous "electorate" won't notice, they tend to recall only the crap they liked.
Lets review Mr Buchanan's opening statement "If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library."
This is not a necessarily an agreement with Mormon theology but simply an article praising another mans stand against the secularism that threatens any Christian belief based on sacrificial love and serving others and not ones self.
I heard Pat on Charles Goyette's show the other day talking about Romney. Pat loves politics and I think the joy of it is what keeps him from going nuts and turning bitter. He's always pleasant and jovial even when he's talking about America's decline with one of his enemies. And you gotta hand it to him to find the good points of otherwise despicable characters. That is a very Christian thing to do.
It may be instructive to read Pat Buchanan's political commentary as just that. Commentary. Pat Buchanan is one of the most astute observers and analysts of the political landscape, irrespective of party. Which is not to discount Mr. Buchanan's emotional connection to the scene on which he comments. But a baseball commentator can emote appreciation for a ball well hit, regardless of team loyalty. In the context of the game in which score is actually being kept, Mitt Romney's speech on Thursday was a ball well hit.
I was ten years old when Kennedy gave the speech that Romney's speech is said to echo. Both Kennedy and Romney came to Texas, and both addressed Baptists, primarily.
Quite precisely do I remember that a few days after Kennedy gave his speech, my father, a sand-hill Southern Baptist from North Louisiana, invited some friends over for a fish fry, catfish which Papa and I had caught in Big Creek. One of the many things discussed was Kennedy's speech. As I recall, most of the folk at the fry were impressed with the fact that Kennedy had promised not to allow his Catholic faith influence how he governed as President. Based thereon, a couple of them said that they would consider voting for him. My father immediately took the contrary position, saying that for precisely that reason he would not consider voting for Kennedy, although my father was certainly not going to vote for him on other grounds. I recall that my father was emphatic: a man who would abandon the fundamental premise of his moral and ethical judgment in order to placate Baptists or any other group was not worthy to be elected to any office. I remember that he then added that the Pope would be a much better adviser to the President than the fools that he would likely gather around him in Washington.
It would seem that Mr. Romney must have gotten wind of my father's profound understanding and thus modified his words for the 2007 predominately Baptist audience. I, however, have not missed the fact that Mr. Romney, a Massachusetts Yankee spoke at the Texas outpost of a fellow Yankee from Connecticut.
I have concluded, quite some time ago actually, that Mr. Romney will deliver any message with the requisite eloquence for the purpose of getting elected. This one, delivered in Texas, is one of those. Romney is merely trying to out flank Huckabee and Giuliani for the evangelical vote. Since my fellow evangelicals are, for the most part, no little gullible, I suspect that Mitt will get his share of them, although I believe that Huckabee has the inside track in courting their sentiments.
I agree with Mr. Buchanan on may issues. He and I are far apart on this one. The speech was not great at all; however, it was sly, cunning and well delivered. That is why the fox has a reputation for enjoying stupid chickens for supper.
My favorites from this thread :
1)None of it is a concern for me. Frankly, I thought this speech was a cynical appeal for donations and nothing more.
2)I like Pat but he must now realize there is no voice for Paleos in the modern day Republican party.
3)For us paleos (be it the conservative or libertarian variety), the best way to look at a candidate should be something akin to “which one is least harmful?”
4) This is ...an article praising another mans stand against the secularism that threatens any Christian belief based on sacrificial love and serving others and not ones self.
5)even ... a baseball commentator can emote appreciation for a ball well hit, regardless of team loyalty ... "
6)"a man who would abandon the fundamental premise of his moral and ethical judgment in order to placate Baptists or any other group, is not worthy to be elected to any office. I remember that he then added that the Pope would be a much better adviser to the President than the fools that he would likely gather around him in Washington."
Don't forget, dear reader, that Pat is loyal to his sister, Bay, and if she asked him as a Mormon, to say something in defense of a fellow Mormon, Pat would in Christian charity, try to find something good to say. He did, and the rest has already been said by some of the best bloggers in America quoted above.
Why all the fuss about Romney being a heretic? To Catholic voters, like Buchanan, isn't that true of every major party nomine [sic] except Al Smith?
And why is "cult" being bandied about like it was a bad word or something?
Why is it that every list of divorce rates I look at shows Mitt's "moral wasteland" having the lowest in the land? OK, "same-sex marriage" is a perversion, but what about opposite-sex divorce? That's been around a lot longer, and destroys many times as many lives.
Why is the scion of a polygamous sect the only one of the top three (for now) Republicans still in his original marriage? The top three Democrats, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, are all married to their first wives.
(As are all the "minor" Republicans.)
Aren't a candidate's judiciary views more germane to the task at hand than his social ones?
Finally, has any president *other* than a former governor of Massachusetts ever signed an immigration restriction bill?
Re # 10:
Insightful comments, and undoubtedly true that Romney's speech had political calculations.
The whole discussion splendidly brings to mind Hilare Belloc confronting the religious question prior to his election to Parliament early in the last century. Against the advice of the clergy, who had advised him not to mention religion, Belloc said to a gathering of prospective constituents:
"Gentlemen, I am a Catholic. As far as possible, I go to Mass every day. This [taking a rosary out of his pocket] is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He was spared me the indignity of being your representative."
It was reported that there was a hush in the crowd for a moment followed by loud applause. Belloc then went on to discuss trade and economic issues.
Does anyone really think that Mormons are Christians?
While Mormons are a form Christian they definitely not Christians as defined by the Roman Catholic Church Roman. This has to do with their theology and understanding of the trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit being One; at the time of baptism. The Church believes in baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The following article comes from http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/ ....it may be of interest to some.
The "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" was organized on 6 April, 1830, at Fayette, Seneca County, New York; Joseph Smith was accepted as first elder, and prophet, seer, and revelator.
The articles of faith formulated by him are as follows:
"(1) We believe inGod, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
"(2) We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
"(3) We believe that through the atonement of Christ all men may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
"(4) We believe that these ordinances are: First, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins ; fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of theHoly Ghost
"(5) We believe that a man must be called of God byprophecy, and by thelaying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer the ordinances thereof.
"(6) We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, viz. apostles, prophets, pastors teachers, evangelists, etc.
"(7) We believe in thegift of tongues,prophecy,revelation,visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, etc.
"(8) We believe theBible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the 'Book of Mormon' to be the word of God.
"(9) We believe all thatGod has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
"(10) We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes. That Zion will be built upon this continent. That Christ will reign personally upon the earth, and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaicglory.
"(11) We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege ; let them worship how, where, or what they may.
"(12) We believe in being subject to kings, president, rulers and magistrates, in obeying. honouring and sustaining that law.
"(13) We believe in being honest,true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul, 'We believe all things, we hope all things' we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."
What was it that Thomas Jefferson said? "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Don't buy a new or used presidential candidate from Pat Buchanan. This is the guy who tried to sell us Boy Emperor Bush in 2004. Mr. Buchanan speaks our language; he knows how to talk the talk. But when it comes to walking the walk, he is always shilling for the Republicans.
Kirt Higdon,
Buchanan stands up where it matters; as a commentator, he walks the walk by talking the talk...
Dr. Wilson at 14,
Here is one Christian who absolutely does NOT believe that Mormons are Christians. I know, of course, that there are some Catholic brethren who frequent these cyber climes who believe that we Baptist are cinder-kicking heretics as well, which is their good prerogative, although the understanding from my perspective is not reciprocal at all; nevertheless, Mormons are about as Christian as a mouse which resides in a cookie jar is a cookie. Now, the Mormons whom I know are very good people, very good people indeed; I'd stack them up for their "goodness" against most of the people who warm the pew with me every Sunday morning; in fact, many of them, perhaps the majority thereof, certainly eclipse me in their piety and devotion. But I am a cookie, however crumbled and stale, and not a well-groomed mouse.
Romney's weakness for me is that he is a political chameleon. Chameleons are interesting as lizards go but are to be held as suspect when they are politicians. Of course, most politicians are of that variety, including all but one or perhaps two currently running for the office of President. For me, Romney is so much so that he is almost a caricature thereof. The speech which is the topic of this thread is merely the latest and perhaps the best example thereof.
Dr. Wilson,
I forgot to mention that Mr. Romney's speech, in addition to being an amended version of JFK's speech, faintly echoes in eloquence and essence as well as the thrall it seems to have brought upon some, weaving in the "sacred" and the "historical," that speech delivered at Gettysburg some years back. Thank goodness we will not be compelled to memorize it!
Re # 16
"... What was it that Thomas Jefferson said? “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ..."
settles it.
Who cares about Romney's "religion" (superstition), be it Mormonism, Hare Krishnaism, Christianity, Budhism, or any other.
" there are some Catholic brethren who frequent these cyber climes who believe that we Baptist are cinder-kicking heretics "
Not me, Mr. Peters. I come from a long line of primitive Baptists from Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma.
They were intelligent men who knew how hard it was to ever get the last word in with a determined woman. They married Irish and Austrian women who converted them and, in the process, gave me, my Roman Catholic faith
I need as many sacraments as possible and don't regret or apologise for my faith but would not wish any serious man like yourself to put up with and endure the silliness we American Catholics have created in the last fifty years. If you are even considering it, my advice is to wait for better days or come aboard only to help man the pumps. The triumphant entry into Jerusalem is over and we are now somewhere between the agony in the garden and death on a cross. No room for chest thumpers and big talkers at this point, only serious applicants need apply.
Roland,
I do believe Silent Cal was from Vermont, but besides that small point, your #12 was solid otherwise.
RE: #23
Please disregard. Mr. Kyser was correct in his initial statement. Old Silent Cal was indeed the gov. of Mass.
Mr. Reavis,
We Southern Baptists are actually a group in an uneasy peace with one another. For the sake of Christ, we historically agreed to put aside some major differences. Among "cooperating" Southern Baptists are Primitive Baptist with a very strong Calvinist leaning - our old family church was Primitive Baptist; Free Will Baptist with a strong, very strong, Arminian leaning; and Landmark Baptist with a very strong apostolic leaning, i.e. laying on of hands by one generation of pastors to empower the next. Baptists, despite their differences, decided nearly 200 years ago to subjugate those differences to the cause of Christ and His Gospel. From time to time, the old differences manifest themselves within one congregation which usually does not even know of or recognize the ancient countervailing undercurrents running through the local body. The friction will usually show itself in something as mundane and banal as whether to put lights or chandeliers in the sanctuary.
I am at the pumps with you.
"If this costs me the presidency, said Romney, so be it.
That is the kind of defiance this country can never hear enough of." -The Pat
yes that's CHARACTER (at least on paper.)
now put me in a room with him... i'll come out with a thumbs Up or down... (by the way i'm the real jeff springer... but since there was an impostor on another board on this site... after this i'll never use the nome de plume 'jeff springer' again - so if you see it again - it ain't me babe, no-no-no-it ain't me babe.........) not that you care or should...
teach us to care and not to care. HA-HA-HA-HA!
__________
Overanalysis!.................Pat is a former speech writer, as well as a strategist. In no way is he doing anything other than recognizing a great speech, at a great time, from a strategical position........I agree with Pat, and I could never vote for Romney, as I realize that a speech is nothing more than a speech............and with the "Mittster" most likely a LIE!
ditto roho above...
Mitt's mitt & a bad dye-job... i don't need to go into any rooms with or without him.
huckabee's a fat slob, on the other hand. but of course not on paper.
_____________
Re: #21
Ben, I happen to belong to a non-denominational Protestant Christian church. As far as I'm concerned, what matters about Mr. Romney is not his religion or lack of same, but his stances on the issues---especially the war, the economy, and the American Empire.
I'm satisfied that Ron Paul is the man I'll be voting for. I consider myself a libertarian and an Austrian-economist.
re: 29
I am interested in understanding the term non-denominational Protestant Christian church, could you explain what that is. And how could one possible decide on issues such as war, economy or American ideas with out taking into account the role of God and the responsibilities we have as Christians.
re: 29
I am interested in understanding the term non-denominational Protestant Christian church, could you explain what that is. And how could one possibly take a stand on issues such as war, economy or American ideas with out taking into account the role of God and the responsibilities we have as Christians.
My church has doctrines close to those of the Methodists, but it's not affiliated to the Methodists or to any other Protestant church, Rev.Mr.
And Dr. Paul has always impressed me as a Christian who nevertheless does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, like Bush does. Bush, I feel, is a hypocrite, while Dr. Paul isn't, and won't be (should he become president).
I'm a Lutheran pastor (just to identify myself). Mormonism is in no way Christian except that it is a cult that comes out of a Christian-ish culture. The greatest downside to a Romney presidency would be the boost of legitimacy it would give Mormonism in our culture. There is still some small stigma attached to Mormonism in the general culture. Would that still be true with a Mormon in the White House? The trouble is that the vast majority of "Christians" in our nation are functional universalists. Even those who are not, are constantly being pulled in that direction by our militantly secular culture. Romney's speech is a defense for a universalistic view of the world, and therefore helps the secularists. I expect the neo-cons to love that, but I expected something else from Mr. Buchanan. I've come to think of Mr. Buchanan's occasional inconsistancies as the product of sentimentalism for an old America and an old G.O.P. I can certainly forgive him his sentimentalism (if that's what it is). I can't help but love this guy who's done so much for the defense of Western Civilization. I'll vote for Ron Paul just like I voted for Pat when he ran, then I will sit back with a glass of beer and watch the horror show of Hillary vs. Rudy. Politics can't save us. A blessed Advent to everyone.
Thank you Paul #32 and Rev. John #33 for the responses.
Also, I forgot to say, I agree completely with Mr. Robert Reavis #11.
"Don’t forget, dear reader, that Pat is loyal to his sister, Bay, and if she asked him as a Mormon, to say something in defense of a fellow Mormon, Pat would in Christian charity, try to find something good to say."
I think this explains Pat's article better than anything else.
You're welcome, sir.
Rev. Mr. you're welcome.
I also wonder if Mr. Buchanan would have been as happy with Mr. Romney's speech had Mr. Romney been a Mohammedan?
Are people still stupid? ... no, i mean THAT stupid?
Let me put this in a walnut shell...
imagination/thought ... imagination (open-ended i.e. like wishes and ideas/ dreams) led to - / thought i.e. conscious awareness of what we're thinking 'unconsciously' anyway - something complete in itself and something we can do... and thus the ability (in some) to hone it for the better. ... imagination or that which is imbalanced toward the imaginary/irrational led to the ability ALSO for thought/that which is imbalanced toward conscious-awareness of the pragmatic or allegedly rational.
(with me so far?)
however since we are Conceptual creatures our biological processes themselves are involved inextricably with Both the irrational & the rational every second - and thus in being a 'great' thinker, like moi - one notices that when we are Able to hone our awareness of unconscious thought at the conscious level for the 'better' - approximate balance between the apparent opposites (i.e. imaginary/irrational & pragmatic/rational) is Requisite and so the rational is Not rational unless it also contains (in the honing) the appropriate amount of the irrational as well, since that exists too in our biological PROCESS!
get it? [if not re-read... once it's spelled out this way a 9 year old could 'get' it.]
now we arrive at religions which attempt this approximate balancing Act which is Requisite.
judaism - imbalanced irrationally/imaginatively toward a blood group/ideology 'as if' divine in being so-called "chosen." It does NOT have an approximate balance requisite between the imaginative/irrational & the reality too of pragmatic/rational to become a civilization - and so ATTACKS to survive. (all attack obviously is out of deficiency and so is in Fact an asking for 'help.' - this also leads in this belief system to the notion of the "attackers" being the victims as well.)
christianity - imbalanced irrationally/imaginatively toward universalism 'as if' peace is divine, and God is love, rather than even God is [also] love. ?
Islam - imbalanced irrationally/imaginatively toward itself as supra-natural or the conqueror of this world's reality via a will to power through sublimation to the godhead.
Each deserves its own Area of the world... because although christianity would ideally 'believe' as a result of its own imbalance - that it can survive close proximity to the other two 'religions' or belief systems...in Fact christianity cannot survive them since they are the antithesis of its own beliefs.
while islam & judaism cannot survive each other's beliefs when in close proximity because they are at root really Tribal - one imbalances more toward blood-group as the ideal (judaism) and the other imbalances more toward ideology as the ideal (islam) but both nonetheless in Fact tribal in inTent and not universal - vascillating between their own blood-groups and their own ideology...ONLY in attempting to get their Own approximate within-Tribe [requisite] balance both personally & inevitably tribally (not universally)... Thus they Both will always have as well unattainable-universalist 'missions.' ...
This is NOT a judgment for or against the ideologies of judaism or islam or christianity... except to point out it is profoundly STUPID to 'believe' they all can co-exist in near proximity to one another. If each and all were to survive.
_____________________________________________
#37 "I also wonder if Mr. Buchanan would have been as happy with Mr. Romney’s speech had Mr. Romney been a Mohammedan?"
There's a bit of a difference there-- you'd have to stretch the definition of "American" almost to a breaking point to include Mohammedans. Whatever the Christian status of the "Palmyran priesthood"-- which is about as relevant to Mitt Romney's campaign as it was to George Romney's-- Mormons are nothing if not American.
#38 "islam & judaism cannot survive each other’s beliefs when in close proximity because they are at root really Tribal"
Interesting use of upper & lower case... Most violent religions, e.g. Shinto, Sikhism, Old Testament Judaism, are indeed tribal, which makes their violence rather benign, as it's defensive in nature. Christianity (and perhaps Buddhism to an extent) is universalist, but peaceful. Islam combines the universalism of Christianity with the bloodthirst of the tribal faiths, so it comes for you with a sword. (And yet it's still somewhat tribal, what with converts taking Arab names.)
Mr. Kyser #39,
"Mormons are nothing if not American." You are, of course, quite right. For me, however, I don't really care if Mormonism is American. It certainly is not Christian. My concern is to try to delay, as long as possible, the arrival of civic universalism in America. I know we are very far down that road already, but I still don't like seeing even more cultural lines crossed. I realize Mitt Romney is very unlikely to be militantly Mormon in office. It doesn't seem that he was in Massachusetts. But if a Mormon is acceptable for a president today, tomorrow a Jew or a Mohammedan will be acceptable to Americans. And the consequences become more serious with each step we take. Religious tolerance only plays into the hands of the secularists. Christians should form a united front against multi-religious tolerance in the civic realm. I believe drawing that line is the only way to hold off the secularist attack. (By the way, I am as pessimistic about that happening as Mr. Buchanan is about the future of America.) I'm sure nothing I've said here is anything you aren't already aware of. I'm certainly no political scholar, just spouting my opinion all over the place.
We have a traditionalist Catholic applauding a speech that was plagued with universalist sentiment. Then he actually comes down on Huckabee for leaving open the idea that Mormonism is a cult? Lest he forget, Mother Church has not changed her position on Mormonism since the 1800's.
The Christian tradition just isn't what it used to be... and neither are its defenders.
“If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library.”
Nonsense. If Romney "wins" the nomination it will be because there is no such thing as an actual primary election. Candidates for president are most likely chosen by the party hierarchy long in advance of any such sham as the GOP's presidential primary.
Why on earth you should be impressed by Romney's pretense at defending his religion is more than I can fathom. Romney is a fraud from his toes to the roots of his hair. His religion is apparently as important to him as his oath to the US Constitution is.
Also, Mormons aren't Christians, anymore than Unitarians are. Mormonism is a cult, just as scientology is a cult.
Really, Mr. Buchanan, maybe a little prayer for the gift of discernment might benefit your commentary.
"Don’t buy a new or used presidential candidate from Pat Buchanan. This is the guy who tried to sell us Boy Emperor Bush in 2004. Mr. Buchanan speaks our language; he knows how to talk the talk. But when it comes to walking the walk, he is always shilling for the Republicans."
Absolutely correct, Mr. Higdon. Mr. Buchanan also wrote a column in 2003, published on LRC, in which he stated that since the war was begun, it was improper to criticize the president.
Mr. Buchanan is obviously a republican, first, last and always. His Confederate ancestors would be ashamed of him for his slavish devotion to the party of Lincoln, Seward and the Sherman brothers.
What a happy life aimed at, depended on where the one tested. Fairly, the life had an odd outlook in various spots of the globe. With the small censure they took in E that:
“any public policy not directed by moral [laws] is only a form of exploitation”.
In other word, do we cast out the system lacking a moral fibre, or make it fit?
While we greeted him, he stood in the middle of the room. Upright and noble, he occupied the most challenged spot.
For those who deny that Mormons are Christians. What is your definition of a Christian? Are you looking to the revealed word i.e. the Bible for your criteria? Are you comparing it to other's interpretation of the word? Also, calling Mormonism a cult signifies nothing. All religions can be classified as such.
As a Mormon who has no affinity for Mitt Romney's politics, I would like to point out some relevant points concerning Mormons and American politics. Mormonism has been highly resistant to leftish fads that have permeated other Christian sects. They were never raging abolitionists, recognizing that where slavery was the law, no good would come from fomenting rebellion. There has been no liberation theology movement in Mormonism. The Church welfare system has always been conservative and based on work and education. Although we believe in the literal gathering of Israel and Christ reigning personally on the earth during the millenium, we believe it will be done in the Lords's time and is not to be hastened through imprudent acts. We also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired, though people like Romney can obscure this through their actions.
For me, there are two distinct issues here. First should Mitt Romney's membership in the church worry anyone who is inclined to vote for him. I answer no. He seems to be very uncomfortable with some past (polygamy, restriction of the priesthood) and some present doctrines (abortion). Establishing some sort of Mormon theocracy is the furthest thing from his mind. The second issue is whether a devout Mormon would be problematic as President. I again answer no. They have been running Utah for many years and have shown no inclination to implement anything that is out of the mainstream of American politics. From the rampant illegal immigration that has occurred in Utah, I wish the members there would stand for something outside the mainstream.
I suppose it was inevitable that such hatred of Mormonism and perhaps Mormons themselves would surface if one was a serious candidate for the presidency. Can't we just get along when dealing with big government, Democrat or Republican style; unchecked illegal immigration; a tragic and unnecessary war in Iraq; the wearing out of our military and inadequate care of our active duty and veterans; unrestricted abortion and same-sex marriage? If Romney is not your choice, don't vote for him. He certainly is not my first choice, based upon the above criteria.
As a Mormon I "claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where or what they may." While we regard the Book of Mormon to be the word of God and the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly we believe the Bible to be largely literally true including much that many would regard as allegorical. Study and ponder the Bible and the Book of Mormon, strive to do His will, then ask God to guide you in light and truth. May God be with and bless all who are striving to be or find good people running for public office. Let's stop the bickering and get to work.
I would say a Christian is one who believes in only one God. He believes in the trinity , the Father ,the Son and the Holy Spirit are one. He believes that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. A christian does not believe in baptism of the dead. Also a Christian is one who believes that public revelation ended with the Bible as we know it. (this from a Roman Catholic view)
To change the teachings of the Church because one person felt inspired leads to chaos. We as people have private revelations daily. We then discern with Gods help through scripture, friends and the Church how to apply these inspirations to our daily lives, how we vote, how we think, who we work for, etc..
Yes, it does matter.
Mr. Kevin Rudd #45 asked;
"For those who deny that Mormons are Christians. What is your definition of a Christian?"
The following is a sufficient answer with regard to Mormonism. I would quote the Holy Scriptures, but I suspect you have heard those quotations already, and have rejected a catholic interpretation of them. So, there is no point in tossing scripture quotations back and forth. A catholic interpretation of the scriptures is one that is rooted in an historical continuity of interpretation, the Holy Ghost indwelling the faith-life of the church throughout time. Interpretation cannot be rooted in one man having visions (Joseph Smith or Mohammed). My "tradition," Lutheran, argues with Rome over who is truly upholding the catholic faith, but neither of us deny the existence of a catholic faith. Those who deny the ancient creeds of the church have the burden of proof laid upon them for their interpretation of scripture.
The Athanasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
In response to #47, Rev.Mr.: Mormons do not believe in baptism OF the dead. We believe in baptism FOR the dead so that those who would have accepted the gospel in this life if given the opportunity would receive baptism.
While stationed in Pakistan almost 30 years ago I couldn't help feeling that this mass of humanity did not have opportunities to hear the gospel and make informed decisions about their eternal future. They will have the gospel preached to them after death. They will then have the opportunity to accept or reject. Could a just and loving God condemn his children on earth for not perfectly doing his will if they were unable to learn it in this life?
Joe, as Catholics we don't either. My apologies, I did not mean to question you own personnel convictions. Here is what the RC Church teaches about salvation.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338