“There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.
“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
Read it all. It wasn’t too bad, i thought, especially on the religious freedom of this country. But he left unaswered the key questions of how his faith would impact his policies, and what Mormons believe and how that is different from what Christians believe–KSH.
My fear of Romney’s religion is just behind my fear of being eaten alive by piranhas. I’m more concerned by his rather fluid stand on salient issues.
It wasn’t too bad, i thought, especially on the religious freedom of this country. But he left unaswered the key questions of how his faith would impact his policies, and what Mormons believe and how that is different from what Christians believe
Kendall!
Aren’t those questions irrelevant in a political context, the irrelevance of which was the specific purpose of the speach?
Are you implying that you think there should be some explanation of one’s religion if one is to run for office?
I remain minimally concerned about his religion. The question is how his record of actions as governor of Massachusetts match up with his current campaign stands. Is he really a conservative on social issues?
Did he really say anything unique? Any of the Republican contestants could have given this speech by changing one word. In fact, I suspect that most of the Democratic contestants could have said the same thing. He only briefly mentioned being a Mormon (interesting that he opted not to use the word Mormon but once (possibly twice, I haven’t reviewed the written text)). Republicans will have to acknowledge that if he is the nominee, the Evangelical vote will not be as motivated to actively campaign and vote as they have in 2000/2004. Well delivered speech, but of little substance that is new or original. I think this, in fact, well sums up Romney.
It was an excellent speech. The point was not to be original, but to remind us of the best of our tradition. We ought to be looking for someone to run the executive branch of government and serve as commander in chief of the military, not theologian in chief.
Did William Howard Taft’s Unitarianism disqualify him from the presidency?
The candidate’s religion becomes an issue if there is good reason to believe that his theology and practice will lead him to behave in a way that contradicts the American governmental and social system. In the case of a Muslim candidate, this would be a serious question. In the case of a Mormon, I don’t see the evidence that this would be the case. Numerous public officials in Western states are Mormon, as is the Senate Majority Leader. I don’t agree with their religion, but I see no reason why they can’t serve in our government.
Andrew Sullivan points to what he senses is yet another “flip-flop” from Romney:
“I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith,” – Mitt Romney, at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum today.
“We need to have a person of faith lead the country,” – Mitt Romney, February 17, 2007. Video here. A Mormon complaint about Romney’s alliance with the Christianist right here.
Earlier this year, Tony Jones set off a mini-tempest in the blogosphere tea-pot when he wrote this:
OK, I’ll be honest. I’m ambivalent about Mormonism, and, be it Mitt Romney or any other Mormon, I’m ambivalent about the idea of voting for a Mormon. And I’ll bet that a lot of Christians, if they’re honest too, agree with me. My ambivalence stems, I suppose, from my ignorance. I’m skeptical of a religion that admonishes its adherents to wear sacred undergarments (Andrew Sullivan caused quite a dust-up when he blogged about this last December), that didn’t allow non-whites to be clergy until 1978, and that follows the teachings of Joseph Smith, whose scriptures I find highly dubious. I don’t agree with the Mormon teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct gods and that the Father and Son currently have bodies, nor with the teaching that only those who achieve the “Celestial Kingdom” will be united with their families in eternity. There’s a lot to be dubious about.
While it pains my liberal, tolerant heart to say this, I sorta agree with Andrew & Tony. Mitt Romney wants nothing more than to be elected as a Republican in 2008 – like it or not, God talk is part of that equation, particularly in the Rovian geometry that looms large over that political party.
My own sense, as a lifelong Dem voter, is that Romney is the best candidate on the GOP slate – and is more likely than not the 4th most likely to get nominated (Rudy being #1, then McCain & Huck) . I admire what appears to be his competency in building businesses and in fixing things. I am disturbed by how nimble he is in adapting his POV to electoral necessities. I personally do not understand how Mormonism and mainstream U.S. evangelicals can share God talk.
But my biggest a-ha here is that the road that a GOP candidate must walk is laced with landmines – immigration, fiscal responsibility & of course the conflict in the Middle East. The landmine that is God talk is uniquely explosive device – my own sense is that Romney tried to contort to avoid any damage and, in the process, missed a huge chance to say something that could challenge the conversation.
What difference does it make if he’s a Mormon or an Episcopalian?
How odd that this has never been an issue for Harry Reid.
Nor is it an issue for Orrin Hatch. Neither one is running for President.
One of them is Senate Majority Leader, quite possibly the second most powerful position in the government. And not a peep.
The most ineffective Majority Leader, so that’s not saying much.
You caught me flat-footed there.
I think we can agree a candidate’s religion doesn’t rise to the level of importance until they run for President. Orrin Hatch ran several times and it was mentioned but it never became a very important issue for him because he was never the frontrunner. Joseph Lieberman’s Judaism wasn’t that important to voters either, partly because he was the V.P. candidate yes, but also because he is part of the Judaeo-Christian Heritage that makes up most of the country. Mormonism falls outside of that framework, and with Mitt Romney one of the frontrunners, he has to address it.
Re: Harry Reid.
Reid gets a pass because the Mormon Church has not, historically, been in bed with the Democratic Party, as it has been, and is, with the GOP. Further, Reid is a first generation convert to the LDS. Romney is a member of one of the LDS’s oldest and most prestigous families.
bob, it’s no flip flop. “A person of faith” simply means someone who believes in God, in something greater than man, no matter what specific belief that is. He is echoing George Washington and Ike. Sullivan doesn’t get this because he doesn’t hold to anything greater than his perverted sexuality.
For myself, I’m unconvinced of Romney. But this was a good speach, and while any other of the candidates could have said it, they haven’t yet. If Romney’s campaign becomes a defense of the role of religion in politics then that would be a good thing.
Further, Reid is a first generation convert to the LDS. Romney is a member of one of the LDS’s oldest and most prestigous families.
I didn’t know that. Are you saying that Reid personally coverted to mormonism? From what, I imagine? And should it not make it more of an issue for Reid if he actually chose this bizaare religion rather than growing up in it?
Christopher:
As I understand it, Reid was raised in an unchurched family (in Nevada) and was attracted to the LDS Church by its cohesiveness. As far as beliefs are concerned, you may have a point. For me, however, the issue here isn’t beliefs per se (although I certainly don’t endorse LDS beliefs), but that of relationship to the LDS power structure, and that “religious-industrial complex” is highly integrated with the Republican Party. Utah is essentially a one-party state, and the same dynamic is found in Southern Idaho, which is also heavily Mormon.
#18 Fr Greg: You nailed that one! The often shadowy integration of the Mormon Church, business and government is downright scary in many parts of the USA — there are many places where one simply will not be hired if one is not a practicing LDS. It may seem unbelievable to those who have not experienced it, but it’s the truth. Many local governments have been taken over by concerted, organized action by the LDS. (And no, I wouldn’t say this without having seen it in action).
The fact that Mr. Romney’s family has been solid Mormon for generations, and that he continues to follow their ‘ordinances’ (including the sacred underwear bit) gives this voter great pause. I will not vote for him, period.
#19 — Is the wearing of prescribed garments any more of an obstacle than adhereing to certain dietary proscriptions?
#17 — I’m with you. If one has grown up in a certain tradition, there is going to be a certain default in its favor. I suspect that Romney hasn’t thought about LDS theology in the same critical way that those of us on the outside have. I’m not persuaded that we should require him to, or to be an apologist for those outside his faith.
#14 — I don’t agree your premise that we should give a candidate’s religion a pass, except for the candidates for the presidency. An entrenched Senator can do a lot more damage than a President (no term limits). What about justices on the Supreme Court? I would think that you’d have to give the same scrutiny to a V.P. candidate (only one heartbeat from the Oval Office, etc.).
I really don’t see any rational basis for drawing the distinction. IMOH, either one rules out voting for a (pick your disfavored faiths and insert here) for any office, or one actually takes a look at how (or if) a person’s religious beliefs or affiliation might handicap that person’s fulfilment of the responsibilities of that office.
So, please explain:
How does Romney’s religious faith and affiliation handicap his ability to fulfill the duties of the Presidency?
Did his religious faith and affiliation handicap him in excercising his duties as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
If they did not, how and why is there a difference between the two?
I have an on-line friend, who lives in Utah, and is a Catholic. She says she is highly ostracized for not being a Mormon. She says she can’t get even get elected to the PTA board because she is not Mormon, and many of her children’s school chums cannot associate with her children outside of school for the same reason. Her list goes on. It’s truly amazing.
It’s a weird community.
#20, I never said Romney’s religion handicaps his ability to fulfill his duties. I would seriously consider him as a candidate. I said that because his religion falls outside of the traditional Judaeo-Christian heritage, he has to explain his religion. Intuitively, most Americans already understand what they get with someone of Jewish or Christian faith. They don’t with Mormonism.
I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty.
Here’s a great example of careful word choice. Why did Mitt say ‘cathedrals’ instead of ‘churches’?
It may be an accident, but I doubt it. I strongly suspect the word choice has a lot to do with the fact that Mormons do not have cathedrals. They have temples and churches/ward meeting houses. And they are always going on and on about explosive church growth (highly questionable in general, and completely false in Europe.) And in fact their temples and meeting houses in Europe are just as empty as everybody else’s.
As a matter of fact, Romney’s statement may even be technically false, because while the parish churches of Europe are empty – I am not so sure about the cathedrals. Is Notre Dame empty?
There’s no way he’d ever have said ‘the cathedrals and temples of Europe are empty.’ That would contradict LDS church propaganda.
For more info on what Mormons believe:
http://www.allaboutcults.org/what-do-mormons-believe.htm
#20, I was addressing nationwide elected office. Because the President nominates someone from the Supreme Court, obviously a Supreme Court nominee will be looked at very closely from every conceivable angle, including religion, usually if he/she is Catholic to determine how he/she would vote on Roe v. Wade. In the nominee’s case, it really comes down to a vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The topic of Harry Reid doesn’t rise to the level of importance in his case because the makeup of his state is already familiar with Mormonism. Nationwide that isn’t the case. So religion becomes very important as to how the potential President would lead the nation and what, if anything, he/she would draw from his/her religion.
Fla Anglican (#22 and #14), re Judeo-Christian heritage: to an independent observer, Christianity resembles Mormonism about as much as Judaism does Christianity. And surely Judaism would be a dealbreaker for many evangelical voters. I suspect that if Lieberman were a Republican (which is not so hard to imagine these days), he’d have a Romney-like problem with the base even if he held Romney’s (most recent) social positions.
Individual Americans have to make up their own minds, clearly. Then, I’ll say I would surmise that Americans already have a familiarity with Judaism and Christianity but not with Mormonism. You are making my point — evangelicals already have an idea about Judaism but Romney needs to give a speech about Mormonism because we don’t know anything about it.
I’m with #19. I have read this blog for many months but have never bothered to register and join in the blogging. After reading this thread, I had to post! I became interested in the Mormons (although no one refers to them as Mormons anymore–now its LDS) studying as a Religion major. I wrote my thesis on them. It was actually about why LDS is actually growing in numbers while so many religions/churches/including the Episcopal are declining. What I found was frightening. Do some research on LDS and theocracy. I don’t think Romney would actually do much harm, but then again, its not really him that frightens me most, its his very wealthy and powerful friends.
#28 Jesuslover:
Is your thesis online or otherwise available?
#29 and everybody else: highly recommended reading is “Mormon America: The Power and the Promise,” by Richard and Joan Ostling. It is a very moderate, gently stated book. I emerged from the book sobered – and thinking “wow, and these people tried as hard as they could to be fair.”
I wouldn’t say it was not an issue at all for Senator Reid. There was a great deal of chatter in Democratic circles about his Mormonism when he was running for then Minority Leader, partially because he is pro-life (a “Democrat for Life” like many). And of course it’s not an issue for Orrin Hatch, he’s from Utah! It would have been more of an issue in Utah if he wasn’t one.
I sat down with a Mormon missionary at the historic temple in St. George, Utah a few years back. He was interested in converting me, I was interested in learning about LDS beliefs and checking them against rumors I had heard. To my great surprise I discovered that nearly all of the preconceptions I had of Mormonism were true. I also learned a great deal. I was undecided as to whether LDS is non-Christian or a very grave heresy. Their eschatology bothers me most (even more than their christology, which says something).
I thought it a good speech. But there are many things I dislike about Romney and frankly Mormonism is just one of them (If he gets the nom I can’t wait for the Dems to start wearing flip-flops in a remarkable turn-about). If I liked him all but for that, I’d more closely examine my opinion on the subject. Ultimately I’m inclined to agree with those who fear a Romney presidency would, if nothing else, give worldwide legitimacy to Mormon missionary efforts.
And to all who cite the unconstitutionality of a religious test, I echo Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics: “it is unconstitutional for the government to have a religious test, but voters can base their votes on whatever damned fool idea they choose!”
[i] Welcome to T19, Jesuslover. [/i]
-Elf Lady
#31 – whoa dude you have got to elaborate. Their eschatology? You got my attention there. Could you say some more?
For the record – I categorically refuse not to vote for Romney because of his religion. Period. No matter what I think of his religion. And yes I have studied and have some rather strong opinions (not all positive) about it. Would I then also not vote for a Muslim? Sheesh.
Thsi speech is much longer than I expected. I thought he was going to say, “You should all just thank God I’m not an Episcopalian”.
I just remembered the last time I was being silly, and that many of you don’t actually have a sense of humor. Just so you’ll know, that was what we call sarcasm.
#30, Sidney:
Thanks for the info. It’s on my Christmas List (Daughter works at Barnes and Noble). Additionally, linked below is a review of the first edition of the book from First Things in the context of an overview of Mormonism. (A Second Edition of the Ostlings’ book is out.) The FI article also recommends, as do I, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism for a candid, more in-depth exploration of LDS beliefs, from LDS perspectives.
Is Mormonism Christian?
JL, I’d still like to read your thesis.
Between Hillery and Mit it is Mit hands down. Shu just got indicted, daja’ vue all over again. Mit did a good job with the Olympics and was a decent Govenor.
Fr. Greg–I would be flattered if you read my thesis. Go to http://www.episcopalvail.com and email my husband, Rev. Alex.
My problem with Romney has nothing to do with his Mormonism. It is his record. Contrary to # 37, Dave B, Romney was nota decent governor. He cut taxes but raised state fees far beyond any cut, therefore actually raising revenues. He spent an inrodinate amount of time out of the state since he had actually begun his campaign for the presidency. He played “social liberal/fiscal conservative” in the rare times he visited the Commonwealth;attending Gay weddings of politicos: talking up women’s right to choose, etc. However, when he was any where else in the country, he took pot shot after pot shot at Massachusetts. His speech today was excellent and he has said many good things but are they real? Personally, I’d hide the silver and I’d check my hand for my watch and ring when he left my house!
Rick, I’m not sure I can do Mormon theology justice. The books and resources others on this thread have mentioned are probably much better than my hearsay. Suffice it to say there are certain distressing aspects of Mormon eschatology (and its related sarteriology). Their belief that the New Zion will be built in America, their belief that the dead have been and can be evangelized and baptized, and most importantly the not often expressed belief that faithful Mormons may become gods of their own worlds some day, will populate them with their own “children of god”, and essentially be co-equal with YHWH. This last is controversial and not often discussed in introductory Mormon literature. In fact it was one of the things I was exceedingly shocked to have confirmed in St. George. When I mentioned to the elder that I had heard the Mormons believed this, he surprisedly remarked that I knew more about Mormon beliefs than many Mormons do (it was not tongue in cheek, he was genuinely impressed and went on to confirm and try to convince me of the sound nature of that doctrine). I told him many orthodox Christians could regard that as almost satanic (the desire to be coequal with God was Lucifer’s downfall). That was about the point our conversation was propitiously ended by the beginning of an organ concert. We wished each other well and went into the concert (“Come, come ye saints” is actually a rather rousing tune, I think).
Of course this is what I heard from one Mormon elder in Utah. Jesuslover and others, I am very open to correction on this. No one would be more happily corrected than I would. It was a frank and interesting conversation. I came away thinking the elder a very nice, committed, and well-meaning man, but it did not endear me to Mormon theology.
Reading some of these comments reminds me of all the phantasies and engineered worries JFK had to wade through. It seems that some would abrogate the part of the U.S. Constitution that says there should be no religious test for public office.
Mormonism believes that God the Father was once a man who evolved to become a god and that we can do so as well. Jesus is literally the Father’s physical son. Until I learned this I never understood why their missionary pitches always make the point that the Father has a body. They mean that He was and is just like we are, just more advanced. They believe He had a mother and father too, I believe, though what happened to them I’m not sure. This world is the Father’s creation. When we become gods like him we will have our own creations and become the god of it.
Anyway, it almost makes Scientology seem legitimate. I’m not really worried very much about Romney as President being able to insert the nefarious influence of the mormon church. Mormonism does what it does in Utah and eslewhere because it is the majority and has been so from the beginning. Mormonism nationally will still be a minority religion, and the enormous checks and balances in the federal government as well as hostile attitudes from democrats and the press will be enough to keep mormon influence where it belongs. Mormonism didn’t seem to benefit from his time as governor of Mass.
The one aspect of his faith that really gives me pause is its deliberate secretivesnes and even mendacity. Mormons are trained easrly on as missionaries to misrepresent their faith so as not to drive away potential converts. They believe the uninitiated are not ready to understand the deeper things so they hide them. That’s their spin. I rather think the elders know that if the people hear about how barking mad their religion really is they would lose a lot of influence. (wouldn’t that be nice) But Romney’s status as a good Mormon means that he has accepted the principle that it is acceptable, at best, to misrepresent oneself for “the right cause”, which makes me wonder how I can be sure what he really believes on issues.
Jesuslover: I am delighted to know that my alma mater is still producing classically trained religion majors. I was one myself; Class of 1980. Harlan Beckley was my mentor, and I still argue theology with him now and again. I actually wrote a paper for McDaniel’s Anthro 101 class on Mormonism. Think I got a B. (My senior thesis was a comparison of the Justification by Faith Alone theories of Martin Luther and Japanese Pure Land Buddhism.)
As for Mitt: The Mormon aspect of a Romney presidency alarms me one heck of alot less than the prospect of Hillary’s return to the West Wing.
I thought that Romney’s speech was impressive, in some places moving. It was also carefully crafted, and addressed a number of concerns that evangelical in general have about religion in the body politic. And he wisely steered away from explaining his LDS faith. But the speech was lacking in one respect, as some thoughtful commentators like Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham pointed out: Romney did not include the fact that freedom in our constitutional government and common understanding includes the freedom to practice no religion as well as the freedom to practice any religion. Strong moral values have been held and expressed by many people who do not profess a religion, and society has benefited from such persons. As one commentator said, this was a good speech to preface the upcoming primaries and those who will come out to vote. It may not fly as well in the minds of a general voting public if Romney is the Republican candidate.
I sincerely hope that no Christian will refuse to vote for Romney because he or she does not like Mormon theology, polity or culture. That, as Meacham said, would be very unamerican.
Bob, society may well benefit from individual atheists, who still can have strong moral characters derived from the religious culture in which they live, but society does not benefit from atheism itself. No society can long survive if atheism becomes the dominant rule. This was Romney’s point. It was Washington’s point, de Tocqueville’s point, Eisenhower’s point. That the agnostic illuminatti don’t get it is neither here nor there.
The issue is that anyone who can swallow theology that bad probably can’t tell good policy from bad.
A number of the comments here have missed the point. The issue is not Mormonism per se. The best candidate is the best candidate and that is for whom one should vote.
But there are two points
(1) how a candidate’s faith informs their life and policies is part of their candidacy–he did not speak to this
(2) there is an issue of truthfulness, in that Mormonism and Christianity are not the same thing and to fail to make this distinction or pretend it is not there goes to the aspect of truthfulness. This speaks to character, and that is part of candidacy also.
Bob from Boone, that is a good observation about “no faith” people as a supplemental way of fleshing out the freedom of religion to which he spoke.
Kendall,
Is it proper to vote on which candidate’s election will advance the Great Commission and which might advance adherence to a non-Christian sect? And, isn’t this of paramount importance to lets say immigration policy or healthcare reform? If so, at least in the primaries, the choice for Christians is clearer.
D
Kendall, about everyone gets this wrong. It’s about religious toleration, not religious values. Everyone votes their values — especially atheists. This nebulous thing we call “values” is, politically speaking, everyone’s “religion.” We have a right to look deeply into that question with each candidate — what is their “religion” (values) and how is it reflected in their religion (sect) and what will that mean to me and others. We all vote on that. After we can be assured that a candidate will be religiously tolerant, we’ve settle the “American” question. It’s then on to the “religious” question and everyone’s got one. If someone can write off a candidate because he/she is “stupid” enough to be a creationist, then I can write off a candidate for being “stupid” enough to think abortion is a choice.
Kendall, I suspect that Romney, like other Mormons, has no thorough idea of what Christianity teaches, and would therefore be unable to explain the differences. I have considerable experience with Mormon neighbors and colleagues; I grew up in Arizona. The missionaries will indeed soft-pedal the full doctrine (becoming gods) and emphasize the social aspects. However I’ve never noticed Mormons as a group lying about other things any more than most people.
Are Romney’s current advisers a mixture of faiths? Were they in Massachusetts? If he shows signs of self-segregating in policy formation and execution, as Mormons tend to in their social lives, then that would be a problem. So far as I know his advisers and political connections are a varied group, with no LDS insiders circle.
(1) how a candidate’s faith informs [his] life and policies is part of [his] (your surrender to gender politics is screwing up your grammar, but that’s a side note) candidacy–he did not speak to this
Sorry, Kendall, but what kind of answer are you looking for? How has any politician ever answered this question? If he says he really believes his faith then we can assume that his valuation of what is right and wrong morally will be shaped by his faith. How he then chooses to advance those moral beliefs in his campaign becomes the issue.
(2) there is an issue of truthfulness, in that Mormonism and Christianity are not the same thing and to fail to make this distinction or pretend it is not there goes to the aspect of truthfulness. This speaks to character, and that is part of candidacy also.
You and I know that Mormonism isn’t Christianity, but he believes it is Christianity restored. He is speaking honestly, if not truthfully, when he calls himself a Christian. The fact that he isn’t really is a theological fact, not a political one. The fact that he doesn’t say that he believes other faiths aren’t really Christian is not dishonest. It is just polite. Mormons believe of orthodox Christianity in somewhat the same way (though much more extreme) that some Protestants believe of Catholicism. Should Huckabee say that Catholics aren’t really Christian? I know Baptists who think Catholics can’t be Christian. Should he also make a point of saying that Mormonism is not remotely Christian? Some reporters have asked him that, not for information’s sake but in order to drive a wedge between Mormon Republicans and Christian Republicans. Politically, the question is irrelevant and threatening to the place of religion in a nonsectarian polity.
The kind of honesty you are asking for is appropriate in arenas where religious truth is the subject. It is not appropriate where political ideas are the topic.
Since the name of the Mormons is “The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints” for them to be not considered Christian one has to apply a doctrinal or theological test to deny them the right in a free America to call themselves Christian. This has absolutely no place in political discourse in the public square. I especially feel this strongly because in the inner city public high school I taught in I was repeatedly told by some “Born Again” Christians newly converted to some fundamentalist Christian sect or another that Catholics aren’t Christians (I taught social studies and history and class discussions frequently came up on religion–a subject kids seem to find more interesting than the usual stuff we throw at them.)
But deaconjohn, there IS a theological test for claiming the name Christian, it’s found in the Creeds and in the historical teachings of the Bible. Much as your fundamentalist friends would hate to admit it, the Catholic Church does qualify. They qualify. Mormonism does not. The Jehoviah’s Witnesses do not. Alas, the leadership of the Episcopal Church probably do not, either, but I still pray for repentance and a return to the Christian faith for them. For all of these mentioned, actually.
But Jim, it’s a religious position to say that the Creeds define Christianity, or that a particular interpretation of the Bible is the definitive one. When you see how the Bible was used allegorically to teach orthodox doctrine it makes it hard to justify limiting the ways it can be read without appealing to some authoritative tradition or historical consensus. But what establishes the authority of that tradition or consensus in the political realm?
No, if some crossdressing fish worshippers want to call themselves Christian there’s not much anyone can do about it in the public arena. It’s not like the term Christian is copyrighted. If it was I’m sure we wouldn’t have rights to it.
libraryjim–There is probably some theological criteria you and I can agree on as to who is a real “Christian.” But in the public square that is irrelevant. In the public square our definition of what is a “Christian” holds no more weight than a Mormon’s definition by which he considers himself a Christian.