So Mitt Romney has given his speech on his religion. There has been a fair amount of commentary about the content. And even some criticism that such a speech should be necessary.
Are people small-minded and bigoted for thinking twice about supporting a Mormon for president?
Well, I'm certain some small-minded and bigoted people are against Romney. But that is not the same thing...
It's not about Mormon theology. I think a lot of people would be more comfortable if Romney would just come out and say that he believes Mormon theology (and everything it implies) or that he is a "cultural" Mormon. He says "I believe in my Mormon faith", but other things he says are not consistent with that...
It's statements like, "My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths" that makes people worry.
Mormons do not have different beliefs about Christ. They have a different God the Father (and therefore, Christ) altogether. They believe that orthodox (small 'o') Christians are false, and they are the only true Church. They believe that we can be like God, and that God the Father was like us once.
It's these odd statements that try and ignore fundamental, logical differences that makes people uncomfortable.
Update: Mike Huckabee felt he needed to apologize to Romney for saying, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" That is a true statement. Of course, Mormons don't like to say it that way. They say, "all beings were created by God and are his spirit children." If we're all the children of God (including Jesus and Satan), then we are all brothers - including Jesus and Satan. You can wrap it with terms like "Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh" (which is Mormon-speak for God the Father having sexual relations with Mary...) but there it is...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Don't forget that Romney also tried to deflect some of the anxiety over his religion by attacking atheists. For this, he doesn't deserve to be president or hold any office what-so-ever, because he's pretty blatantly stating that he will not work for some of the citizenry.
I'm from MI and Romney's dad who was also a Mormon was governor of Michigan when I was born.
I don't see a problem with having a Mormon president. Although I disagree with Mormon theology, I don't think that they are morally corrupt or that he will lead the United States to a country where multiple marriages are allowed or banning alcohol or anything.
I don't like the fact that he flip flops on issues like abortion to win votes. It shouldn't be about winning votes it should be how you stand on issues and leading a nation in that vision.
That's one thing I can say about George Bush. Right or wrong, he doesn't care about popular opinion. He's gonna do what he wants.
theden,
What part of MI? I grew up in Ann Arbor.
I agree that being Mormon shouldn't disqualify anyone, but being a bigot should, and Romney is a bigot. I've never heard a good answer from him about why he supported the Mormon church during its racist period either...
As to Bush, it's one thing to do what's right even if popular opinion is against you, but it's quite another to be unwilling to accept other opinions and plot a course that makes sense. He's also so afraid of the flip-flop label that he's entirely unwilling to ever admit any mistake, and he's made some big ones. So, by pounding full-steam ahead and not being willing to change course, he's making the situation worse, instead of better. Is this something to be admired? Of course not.
GCT,
I grew up in Canton and now live in Plymouth. Not far at all from where you grew up. I go to Ann Arbor a few times a month for various things.
Regarding Bush...I can't believe we agree on something!!!
GCT: You make a good point, it comes across as pandering to the concerns of religious voters, and dodging the key issues.
On a tangent, the Declaration of Independence says we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
If there is no God, where do our rights come from?
theden,
I'm glad we agree on Bush. I wasn't sure how to read your statement.
Also, I know Canton and Plymouth well. I used to play indoor soccer in Canton all winter long.
nedbrek,
Our rights come from the established rules of society. I fail to see how the existence of a creator would grant us rights and privileges. Instead, I can easily see how the need for a functioning society would mean the need to set boundaries and rules for rights. It's not difficult to understand that I have no claim to demand that one not violate my person if I'm unwilling to follow that myself.
As another tangent, the Declaration is not legally binding on the US, and I don't believe that Jefferson originally included any reference to a creator. I find the Constitution to be a much more enlightened document, in that it specifically lays out that government is instituted by people, with the implication that our rights stem from ourselves as well.
GCT, I'll answer your points out-of-order:
"I fail to see how the existence of a creator would grant us rights and privileges."
If there is a God, then God is superior to the state. The state is endowed with authority from God. If the state fails to uphold God's expectations of a just state, we are free to oppose the state (either through civil disobedience, or revolt - as the national fathers did).
"Our rights come from the established rules of society."
If rights are only "established rules", then what is wrong with the established rules being "all theistic religions are acceptable, atheism is not"? That is our culture.
"the Declaration is not legally binding on the US"
Sure, but it gives us additional context to the thinking of the nations fathers.
nedbrek,
"If there is a God, then God is superior to the state. The state is endowed with authority from God. If the state fails to uphold God's expectations of a just state, we are free to oppose the state (either through civil disobedience, or revolt - as the national fathers did)."
Perhaps you've never read the Constitution? The state is empowered by the people, not by god. If the state fails to uphold the people's expectations of a just state, then we are free to oppose the state. god never factors into it. Besides, even if god did factor into it, you're simply adding a layer without need.
"If rights are only "established rules", then what is wrong with the established rules being "all theistic religions are acceptable, atheism is not"? That is our culture."
Because we realize that freedom is a good, and that course of action would unnecessarily limit freedom. Further, what's to stop us from going further and saying that only this or that theistic religion is acceptable? As rational beings, we can figure out that once you go down that road, you start to limit the freedom of others, and you are only a step away from having someone else limit your freedom. That's the beauty of the bill of rights, especially the first amendment. Government is specifically told to stay out of religion. It was made that way not just to protect my rights to disbelieve, but also to protect YOUR rights to believe as you wish to.
"Sure, but it gives us additional context to the thinking of the nations fathers."
And what is that additional context, that some of them were theists? That's not at all profound.
The first amendment forbids the establishment of a national religion. This is a hard won lesson from after the Reformation. Nations in Europe each instituted one form of Christianity as national religions. When reform was called for by the Anabaptists, they were oppressed by their government. Many came to America.
Irritating atheists by proclaiming God in public spaces is not the same as establishing a religion. The establishment clause is sufficient defense against any particular form of theistic religion being the law of the land. But we need to retain our right (as individuals) to say that someone is wrong.
"The first amendment forbids the establishment of a national religion."
Correct, and in order to do that, government must remain neutral on the topic of religion.
"Irritating atheists by proclaiming God in public spaces is not the same as establishing a religion."
That depends, doesn't it? If a private citizen says god, then it's their right. If the government starts doing it, then they are establishing theism over atheism and are violating my rights. The right to freedom of religion necessitates that I also have freedom from religion.
"But we need to retain our right (as individuals) to say that someone is wrong."
The first amendment doesn't restrict your speech at all. It restricts what the government can and can't do. You can claim that someone else is wrong all you want and not violate the constitution, unless you are speaking on behalf of the government. If you are doing that, and advocating religion, then you are causing the government to violate my first amendment rights and everyone else's.
Theism is not a religion. A religion is a man-made institution. It includes human leaders, rules, and such. Theism is a set of assumptions about the world. Atheism is a different set of assumptions. The founders of our country certainly assumed the existence of God.
You do have freedom from religion. European countries use tax money to support churches and staff. I've read fictional accounts where church attendance was required, not sure if that is modeled on history. It was certainly customary form for some, and it could cause difficulties if you didn't.
No one in America should be proposing that (and using government funds for religious organizations providing services similar to secular organizations is not the same).
nedbrek
"Theism is not a religion. A religion is a man-made institution. It includes human leaders, rules, and such. Theism is a set of assumptions about the world. Atheism is a different set of assumptions. The founders of our country certainly assumed the existence of God."
What the founders believed (and not all of them did believe in god) is immaterial to the system they set up. Although it is true that theism is not necessarily religion, it is a violation of the separation of church and state to push inherently religious ideas on the populace.
"You do have freedom from religion. European countries use tax money to support churches and staff."
And you don't think that happens here? At the very least, churches are tax exempt and don't have to follow the rules of non-profit orgs. Still, with faith-based initiatives, etc. we have the same thing happening here, where my tax dollars are spent on religious institutions.
"No one in America should be proposing that (and using government funds for religious organizations providing services similar to secular organizations is not the same)."
Actually, it is the same, because those religious orgs use the money to preach, and they have a lot of overhead which wastes the money on what essentially becomes religious business.
Post a Comment