AmericanPapist Comments
As I've stated before, the fact that he has to address this is a travesty. I want to know why people are afraid of Mormons? We've got Huckabee refusing to say that Mormonism isn't a cult so that he can play upon the fears of Iowa's evangelicals. Who knows what he thinks of a religion that every changes bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ every Mass? If he thought it could win him an election, I'd bet he'd play that card. Can the man not when a debate on the issues?? All of this should sicken any Catholic who has any knowledge of this country's past treatment of Catholics. Every election offers something that just boggles the mind. Sweet, fancy Moses.
I doubt Romney will say much. Anyway, that speech has doubtless been rewritten every two hours since it was announced, in response to whatever trends the latest poll found.
Nathan, why is it a travesty? I have a hard time understanding such a position, and clarification would greatly help.
LCB,
I understand why Rudy, Hillary, McCain, Obama, and Edwards don't need to explain their faith -- they don't pretend to have one in any serious way, though I'm sure they're quite spiritual. But I gather Huck does, so don't you agree he'd better explain it? Or is this simply a Catholic/Mormon thing?
LCB, I feel that it's a travesty that he has to explain his religion because it has no bearing on how good of a job he would do as president. One might say, "Well, his religion shapes his political views." That's probably true, but if his views are in accord with a particular voter's, then why should that voter care about his religion? If his views aren't in accord with a voter's, then by all means, don't vote for the guy. But don't refuse to vote for him because he adheres to a faith not many understand. The First Amendment allows for the free exercise of religion in this country. I don't see why that wouldn't apply to a person running for the presidency.
Nathan, check out Jimmy AKin's terrific critique of the Romney talk (and your position thereon?) at his site.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/def...-
impressed.html
Ed, I read Jimmy's critique, and it is thoughtful; but I disagree with it. So the Mormons have elders who have a direct line to God, what of it? So do we! While (a minority of) Catholics understand the limitations of papal infallibility, they also understand the breadth and obligations associated with the Magisterium. The fact that Mormons are polytheists is simply not relevant.
Okay Nathan, lets just suppose your completely unfounded absolutely inappropriate analogy that Huckabee could be anti-catholic and thinks Catholicism is an evil cult ala some sort of Jack Chick understanding of the universe as created by King James is correct.
He is still the better choice over Romney or Guilliani. I would rather have a pro-life anti-Catholic in office than Rudy "my social views are shaped by Pope Kerry" Guilliani or Mitt "never was pro-life while in office" Romney.
Call me clueless but I think if you are going to run on your record as a conservative, you ought to have some record as a conservative to run on. At least Huckabee has run the difficult race, so to speak. Sure Romney can talk all day about his so-called conversion experience and this has some currency yes even among voters like myself but Americans know politicians are full of hot-air and we tend to demand some substance underneath the sugar-coating so we know we are at least getting something as substantial as a cookie and not a dollop of frosting. Romney offers nothing but Guilliani-esque promises and that makes too many people too nervous about the future of this troubled nation we live in.
But this is where the shrieking insanity of your analogy hits the windshield of reality:
How do you get around the fact that the Book of Mormon explicitly states the Catholic Church is the "great abominable church of Satan" responsible for the corruption of Christianity and a force of evil and destruction throughout human history? The prophet Joseph Smith fought in a fair number of battles but he never likened himself to a Crusader. He always would wax poetic about his resemblance to the "other" prophet who wanted to fix a broken Christianity, Muhammad.
Do you say to yourself "his religion has codified anti-Catholic screed into holy writ, but the believer has never said or done anything anti-Catholic therefore he is an alright joe."?
Holy writ, Nathan. We aren't even on the level of the teachings John Calvin or Martin Luther or Jack Chick here. The Book of Mormon, which Mormons believe to be more accurate than the KJV itself, is their ultimate God-breathed authority in terms of written testimony and revelation. Its teachings supersede those of the Bible.
And how comfortable would you be voting for a Mormon if you were black? Or a woman?
This is the arrogance of Romney. He expects the party to fall in line with him because his is the finest specimen of all the vat-grown presidential candidates offered by the Cadmus Project and his religion, which is soooo important to him, is only a minor flaw in what is otherwise the perfect Republican super warrior of the new century so pretend it does not exist and he really looks perfect.
Oh, and by the way, if you do happen to have a legitimate gripe against the faith, that makes you an anti-Mormon bigot who is applying an unconstitutional test of religion.
(continued)
Call me all the names you want, the voting booth happens to be equipped with a cloak of invisibility that makes me immune to your jibes.
I'm going more with free-range Huck because I prefer my birds a little on the wild side with extra omph of fight in their veins.
"How do you get around the fact that the Book of Mormon explicitly states the Catholic Church is the "great abominable church of Satan" responsible for the corruption of Christianity and a force of evil and destruction throughout human history?"
Easy, it says no such thing. Stub, such easily refutable false claims can make one appear the bigot.
Ed, what Mike said sums up my feelings on the link you provided.
StubbleSpark, it seems from your first few paragraphs that your support for Huckabee is based on policy preferences. That's completely fair, and as it should be.
As for Mormons not liking Catholics, I don't know if you know this, but a lot of Protestants aren't exactly big fans of us, either. I know that one Christian church here in my town doesn't even consider Catholicism to be a form of Christianity. (Suits this topic at hand, doesn't it?) Didn't Thomas post today about how anti-Catholicism is acceptable in today's culture? It's no big deal, though. I mean, what we believe opens us up to warranted attacks, right? Seeing a man (most definitely not a woman) performing what an outsider would deem to be magic tricks every Mass is kind of cult-ish, isn't it? I don't think so, but those who don't like Catholics seem to have some evidence to justify their bias against us. So is anti-Catholicism unacceptable, but anti-Mormonism is fair game? Hypocrisy runs amok.
Hypocrisy indeed!
I would have thought as a Catholic you would get the Jack Chick reference.
I hate to disabuse your disabuse of my disabusing you.
Nathan,
Your comments and clarifications are indeed helpful. Thank you for answering so clearly.
So many issues are in play, so I'll pick just one (since it's a very good one): " So is anti-Catholicism unacceptable, but anti-Mormonism is fair game?"
It seems immoral to oppose an individual a priori simply b/c of his beliefs. However, it seems that the content of those beliefs may allow for opposition to Romney as President. Here is my perspective, your critique would be appreciated:
Faith and reason can never oppose each other. From my study of Mormonism (somewhat extensive, but not indepth), it seems clear to me that right reason and faith clearly contradict one-another in the Mormon belief system. As such, a 'good' Mormon (one who believes what Mormons believe and follow what Mormons are to follow) might be opposible precisely because of his religious affiliation. Why? Because it shows a defect in the person's ability to use right reason, and thus shows him to be unqualified for political leadership.
In my view, this would not apply to Catholicism. Though some may consider Catholicism to be in error, no tenent of the faith is unreasonable. Even many anti-Catholics will admit that the Church's beliefs aren't unreasonable, but simply incorrect.
To summarize: It seems acceptable to oppose Romney DUE to his faith, but not BECAUSE of his faith. The cause of opposition is NOT the faith itself, but rather what holding the faith implies about the person.
Ironically, if he were a 'bad' Mormon (in the sense that Rudy is a 'bad' Catholic) it would probably be enough to qualify Mitt for full-fledged support.
Depends on how you define "bad". As it stands, Rudy has as many exes as Mitt has children.
Zing!
Commenting by HaloScan
