Mitt Romney is getting too easy a ride over his Mormonism….[but there are hard questions to be asked].
The first is about the sheer weirdness of the founding beliefs and the sense in which he really embraces them. The second is the Church’s long history of racism and sexism, as well as its censorious ideas about the terms on which poor people qualify for community help. The third, with the most immediate implications, is whether the Church’s conviction that its members are direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and are now “members of the House of Israel” ”” as well as its belief that when a Mormon saviour one day arrives it may be in Washington ”” would make him more likely to attack Iran over its nuclear programme.
Read it all (requires subscription).
Tiresome. I hold no brief for Mormonism which I do not regard as fully Christian. However, the plain fact is that for each and every religion you could ‘cherry pick’ and find that which is alien and even bizarre to the modern world, that which is downplayed or reinterpreted. An article like this says nothing about Mitt Romney but a lot about the cultural assumptions of the author.
How come the “weird” beliefs of the Rev. Wright’s church were off limits in 2008? Aren’t those beliefs and practices relevant since Obama attended church there for 20 years, and was a close friend of the reverend?
They have already gone after Catholic Ryan for things which happened a century or more ago. I can’t wait for them to discover what is called the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Agreed. I’ll judge American politicians (and their faith) by the standard of St Peter (Acts 10:35): Fear God and do what is right.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will definitely receive my votes this fall.
It seems the polls which have been showing religious bigotry is more common on the left today than on the right are correct. Neither Maddox nor anyone else will find anything in current Mormon teaching or practice to show Mormons do not accept our political and civic institutions, and that’s the only thing we need be concerned about in candidates for public office.
[blockquote]Mitt Romney is getting too easy a ride over his Mormonism…[/blockquote]
Did this guy not follow any of the primaries?
The Democrats are getting really, really, really desperate. Even Anderson Cooper went after them yesterday for dishonest campaigning against Romney.
OK, now that you’ve pounded on all your favorite whipping boys, is it possible that elements of the Mormon religion might require closer scrutiny – or does Mr. Romney get a complete pass?
Well, according to the Constitution, everyone is entitled to a complete pass (in theory).
Dan, are you saying you have a problem with Mitt Romney being president because of his religion? Sure sounds like it.
For me this is a pretty easy analysis. I think Romney, especially if there is a Republican Congress, will be more protective of religious freedom than the present guy. You have to remember that the present administration, in addition to the whole Obamacare contraception issue, argued just a few months ago in the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal government had the legal right to determine who could be a pastor or teacher in a church or religious school, shocking even the justices.
Dan Crawford, if we are talking about what religion is true, then of course I think there are lots of things about Mormonism which require scrutiny. But we’re not voting for a pastor or religious teacher; we’re voting for a national CEO. I disagree with a great deal of what the current Episcopal Church leadership is teaching. Does that mean that I should decline to vote for someone who agrees with it for that reason, or should I rather look at his political principles and see what I think of those?
On the other hand worldviews matter and if Romney’s worldview is subject to review then so to are the worldviews of the liberl/progressives.
To paraphrase President Kennedy, Governor Romney is not the
LDS nominee for the presidency, he is the nominee of Republican
Party. And I am going to vote for him and pray God that he is
elected!
There are a lot of reasons for why I’m not voting for Romney. But his bizarre religious beliefs aren’t on that list. That said, it’s a free country and people are free to vote, or not vote, for whom they wish for any reason they wish.
I’m at a big disadvantage because I can’t read the whole article but, to be honest, Mormonism IS weird. While I do think it might be a hoot to be really, really good in this world so I could rule my own planet in the afterlife, I have to admit that Mormon teachings are bizarre, by Christian standards. And when I was growing up RC, I was taught that Mormons weren’t Christians and their teachings are bizarre. That doesn’t change just because a GOP presidential nominee is a practitioner.
If all that the writer is saying is that there are weird Mormon beliefs that should be considered with regard to governing, then why is that a problem? There WAS a lot of discussion about Obama’s religion and the Rev. Wright and what membership in that church might indicate regarding the presidency. Sorry, but anyone who doesn’t remember that may be practicing selective perception. The furor led Obama to quit that church.
Strange, isn’t it, that we never heard much about former presidents Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon’s Quaker beliefs?
I wonder if the Times would be upset if it became clear that an atheist candidate for President was not electable due to their atheism. I suspect they would, and start quoting about how there should be no religious test for the U.S. I think this is a very one sided concern by the London Times that is frankly hypocritical.
Basically they’ll only be happy with a candidate that reflects their own editorial policy. They should just come out state that, rather than trying to argue that on other grounds.
I couldn’t read the article and wouldn’t pay to read it, but regardless of the Times’ agenda, regardless of whether anyone else gets a “free pass,” Maddox is right. Romney’s faith is weird. Let’s not be in denial about that. And I know it’s politically correct to say a politician’s religion or lack thereof should not be an issue, but it is. It goes to judgement. It goes to morality. For example, in my opinion, anyone who would ignore a candidate’s professed atheism is ignoring a key flaw in judgement. It should be taken into consideration by voters. Having said all that, some of the worst philanderers have turned into halfway decent leaders, and some of the biggest religious prigs have turned into awful leaders. So you weigh it all in the balance and in the end hold your nose and vote.
I definitely agree that people should be able to make decisions about a candidate and whether they will vote for him or her based on faith and foundational worldview [the “religious test” is that of a *governmental* religious test; individuals are perfectly free to judge anything from a person’s religion to his hair color in regards to how they will vote]. And I do agree that Mormonism is a garden-variety kooky religion — not *weapons-grade kooky* but fairly standard-grade kooky.
Some people may choose to not vote for someone based on his or her Scientology, or old membership in the Heavens Gate Cult, or being a member of TEC — and I perfectly understand those decisions too, though I almost always make my decisions based on what I believe to be the candidate’s political worldview and his values regarding the Constitution, private property, individual liberty, free enterprise, and the role and size of government.
However, I don’t agree that Romney’s faith *will* or *should* be “an election issue.” I think that’s the fond fancy and hope of somebody who, in reality, doesn’t like the candidate’s purported political worldview and wishes that somehow his religion could be used to stop the candidate’s possible success.
Bingo, Sarah…….and thank you!
The real issue here is that a London Times writer, who if he doesn’t understand the American election process any better than most of my British friends do, is simply writing about something he does not understand.
So, his views aren’t worth critiquing, in my opinion.
Two points of order:
(1) Bronwen Maddox is American, though (2) [i]she[/i] lives and works in England.
“How come the “weird†beliefs of the Rev. Wright’s church were off limits in 2008? ”
Huh. I didn’t remember them being off limits here on t19. Guess I forgot how generous everyone here was to candidate Obama back in ’08.
RE: “I didn’t remember them being off limits here on t19.”
I think the commenter — looking at the context of Ms. Maddox’s article — was noting that the mainstream media didn’t deal with Obama’s faith any more than they are dealing with Romney’s. I don’t think the commenter was referring to the commenters on an Anglican blog [or any tiny blog] as having thought Obama’s faith was “off limits.”
I suspect that the mainstream media will make every effort, though, to look with furrowed brow at the weird faith of Romney, as long as the polls keep tightening up. There’s still three months for them to suddenly become concerned about their journalistic duty.
RE: “Guess I forgot how generous everyone here was to candidate Obama back in ‘08.”
Since some of the people here actually voted for the man, it appears so.
I’ve always thought the man had great charm and personality, and I like him far far better than I did Clinton — as I stated back when he was a candidate. Given his ideology, and his principled commitment to that ideology, there have been no surprises at all for me about his actions over the past 3.5 years. He’s been just what I expected.
The only ones bringing up Obama’s connection with Rev. Wright were the talk show hosts on the Right (and the conservative blogs). The Media [i]MAY[/i] have mentioned it once or twice, but were quick to gloss over it after that, and Sean Hannity was castigated by the Mainstream media for harping on this issue (as well as Obama’s associations with other unsavory characters).
Compare that to the treatment Sarah Palin’s Pentecostal church (and the prayers they prayed over her); the scathing treatment of Rick Santorum’s Catholicism; and now NBC’s Andrea Mitchell does an hour-long look at Mitt Romney’s Mormon Church.
There is definitely a double standard going on here.
Hang on. Didn’t Obama have to give a major speech (in Philadelphia, I think) in order to diffuse the media furor about Jeremiah Wright? A quick google search turns up a NY Time article among many, which begins:
“Now it’s been quantified. If you thought the news media had been giving lopsided coverage to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Senator Barack Obama’s former pastor, you would be correct.
“Mr. Wright even got more exposure than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Mr. Wright dominated 42 percent of political stories last week, from April 28 to May 4, according to a survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which uses empirical methods to analyze news coverage.”
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/wright-dominated-news-coverage/)
The idea that this issue was just swept under the carpet is pure revisionism.
Now, it’s true that when the Republicans wanted to reopen the issue during the campaign itself, it turned out the controversy was used up. That’s why many political pros believe you should get this stuff dealt with during the primaries. But it’s just not true that Wright was never dealt with in the MSM.