We hypothesize that white Catholics and mainline Protestants are fine with Mormons because they are not bothered by the same theological issues as are evangelicals, who are theologically conservative and question whether Mormons are really Christians. Nor are these politically moderate groups troubled by the same political issues as staunchly secular Americans and racial minorities, who are politically liberal and disagree with Mormons’ conservative political views.
It’s clear, then, that whereas evangelicals present a problem for Mr. Romney as he competes in heavily evangelical primary states like Iowa and South Carolina, his Mormonism would be unlikely to hurt him if he survives and wins the Republican nomination. Neither secular nor minority voters are prone to vote for Republicans anyway, and evangelicals are equally unlikely to cast a ballot for a Democrat. Of course, evangelicals may hurt a Romney candidacy by staying home on Election Day 2012, but their strong opposition to President Obama and their past high levels of turnout suggest that they will take to the polls to try to oust the incumbent. Meanwhile, other churchgoing Americans””especially white Catholics and mainline Protestants””appear unconcerned with Mr. Romney’s religion.
If Conservatives don’t vote for Romney, and, if necessary don’t vote at all in the Presidential race, it will be because of his politics, not the fact that he is a Mormon.
I won’t vote for him period. I consider him a false conservative, a RINO, an Obama lite. I had enough with George Bush who did some things I liked, including leaving me alone, but Bush vastly expanded Government power under the Patriot Act and spent like a drunken sailor.
I want someone who will at least attempt to restore the Federal Government to its proper and limited Constitutional role and roll back a to powerful and imperial Presidency and executive.
I agree with Br. Michael.
But it would be interesting, should Rick Warren decide to interview Mitt Romney, if he’d ask “Under the teachings of Mormonism, do you consider ME to be a Christian?”
Peace
Jim E. <><
“We hypothesize that white Catholics …”
I’m not sure where the “white” comes from or what “are fine with Mormans” means, but no Catholic is free to assert or hold that those baptized in the Church of Latter-Day Saints, aka Mormans, are Christian in a doctrinal or canonical sense. See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-navarrete_en.html . Note especially: However, it is well to remember that, although the Mormons can perhaps be considered Christians socially, in the ecclesiastical forum they are to be considered non baptized and therefore for the dispensation from the canonical form there must be applied the criteria that the Bishops’ Conference has established for the dispensation from the form in marriages between a Catholic and an non baptized person (can. 1128, 1127 §2). The clarification goes on to explain that a dispensation from “disparity of cult,” is required, as is the case for a Catholic to marry any non-baptized person.
The actual authoritative response to the “dubium” on the validity of Morman baptism is found: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html
Now, whether this has any impact on Romney’s leadership acumen or natural virtues is another question.
“Which groups view Mormonism favorably…?” posits the WSJ’s subtitle. Let’s see, would it be reasonably to think that groups that do favorably view it, may need still to consider how anyone outside the US – you know, its allies and the like – views it?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100111255/does-mitt-romney-believe-the-mormon-myths/
Note there are nearly 800 comments to the linked article.
Even if there are myriad Republicans and other US voters who favorably view Romney’s nominal religion, those electing a US President have a duty to consider also [i]what their candidate would represent about the US to the world[/i] in which it exists.
#1, #2, if strong conservatives stay home in the 2012 election the result might very well be the re-election of Obama, who is far, far worse for the Federal budget than any of the Republican candidates would be. With a Republican House and Senate, Romney would be somewhat constrained with respect to his Northeastern liberal tendencies. Politics is about what is possible. I always vote for either the best candidate, or failing that, for the least-worse. Please consider this before deciding to sit it out.
TACit, our current President’s theology, insofar as anyone can determine what it is, is a variant of black liberation theology. This is more dangerous than the Mormon peculiarities with respect to public policy choices. That’s always the question: what effect will the candidate’s personal views have on his governance and policy choices? Wearing special undergarments and participating in LDS temple ordinances should have no discernible effect on public policy. The effect of believing in a radical leftist version of religion is readily seen, since political implications are part and parcel of that way of thinking.
The Obama-Soros-Radical Islamist trinity is fatal for America as founded. While I have even more policy disagreements with Romney than I did with GW Bush, I will pull the lever for him if he is the Republican Party nominee. Then, I will pray he is a one-termer with a Republican Congress and we transition to a true conservative.
On the other hand, I am hoping for ABR…….anyone but Romney. And I am praying for ABO……anyone but Obama.
Agreed, #6, ABR and then ABO. #5, I think the article was ostensibly about voter groups that might view Romney favorably enough, despite the Mormonism factor, that they would vote for him if he’s nominated. But we’re still a ways from that nomination process and I would hope many Republicans would start asking themselves how R. as the nominee would look from outside the country, because when it comes to Nov. ’12 voters in general may also think about that. The article I linked makes it pretty clear the US might risk its credibility with him as the nominee/electee, successful oligarch or no.
To be clear, I don’t care about electing Republicans. I do care about restoring limited constitutional government at the federal level.
I also think that the federal government is to far gone to be saved, just as the Roman Republic was too far gone when it fell and turned to the Empire. I don’t see much difference in imperial rule whether it be Octavian or Brutus. The federal government has to be sharply limited in the power it exercises and the executive branch needs to be sharply pruned and power removed.
I know that Obama and the liberal/progressives won’t do that, but Romney won’t either, he’ll just move to the Imperium at a slower rate. I simply am not interested in exchanging one Emperor for another with a different flavor.
Personally, I believe that if we get into the argument that Romney’s religion may serve us better than Obama’s, then we are definitely on the WRONG track. Neither one of them–Mitt or Barack–will govern from a pulpit. And Romney’s Mormonism is far more supportive of the US Constitution than is Obama’s Liberation theology. This particular line of discussion really serves no one very well.
We need to look at the fruits, if you will. Both men do flips but Obama’s are more dangerous. Romney will tend toward a typical Judeo-Christian background (despite what you may think, Joe Smith came from such a one!) while Obama continues to be influenced by his mother’s near socialistic philosophy and his friends’–Ayers, Wright, etc–put America down philosophy.
And in the long run, we need to look carefully at how each man holds to the Constitution.
Sad to say, God would have us NOT consider their religions.
[i]I don’t care about electing Republicans[/i]
I don’t either, but from a practical standpoint the only credible opponent to the Socialist in Chief will be a Republican. And yes, the republic may be too far gone to drag it back into something that looks like the limited Federal government envisioned by the Founders.
With Romney (God help us) as POTUS we have a [i]chance[/i] for reform minded individuals to bring a true conservative to the Presidency in 2016 [and that may be a long shot too].
With 4 more years of BHO we probably do not: he will bypass congress and we will in effect have a dictator who will open the doors wide for every socialist in the world to come help and enact “no hope & change”.
All of this of course assumes there are national elections in 2012: yes, you may snicker, but the chatter is increasing on this subject,
http://votingamerican.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/election-2012-or-martial-law/
Along with Capt. Deacon Warren, for me it’s not electing Republicans per se. It’s electing the most conservative viable alternative to what we’ve got in any particular election. I’ll vote for Romney if it comes to that while campaigning for a conservative Representative here at home.
But good gracious, Capt., I hope that alarmist site is wrong. Even if we have spreading violence from the OWS and associated movements there is no reason for elections to be suspended. We had a presidential election in 1968 in the midst of considerable domestic violence and terrorism. We survived.
[i]I hope that alarmist site is wrong[/i]
Amen to that, but recall, even the (Democratic) Gov of N. Carolina spouted off about how maybe it would be better if we did not have elections. I only linked that one site……..there are literally hundreds of others out there.
Here’s why to be watchful: for the first time ever, the left now holds the levers of power all they way up to the POTUS. Will they be gracious in letting go of that power? They are sooooooooo close to achieving over a hundred years of dreams about transforming America into their leftist utopia. Are they just going to quietly walk away from that and wait for another time?
I sure hope so, I really do. But no matter how much I hope for that, human nature is what it is. Down here in hurricane country the motto is “hope for the best, prepare for the worst”.