AmericanPapist Comments
It's saddening that people would be reluctant to vote for a person because of his/her faith or lack thereof.
I am afraid that Romney is basically going to repeat the atrocious response to this question that was made by JFK. Romney was caught on video at WHO in Des Moines, on the air and during commercial breaks, discussing this very issue. His answer was basically the "two truths" theory--my religion is one truth, and it's personal--my duties as a public official derive from the other truth--the Constitution, the needs of the country, etc.
Which begs the question, why should I believe Romney at all? He seems to tailor his "image" based on what election, (Massachusetts's vs Nationa) and it doesn't seem like he is committed to much of anything. His religion was of almost no importance to me other than if he were devout or not. That would at least show he was committed to a moral framework.
Huckabee is at least pretty genuine in his beliefs, doesn't keep his religion at arms distance and acknowledges God's role in his life both public and private. He has much more credibility with me and I actually believe him when he says he is pro-life.
Nathan said, "It's saddening that people would be reluctant to vote for a person because of his/her faith or lack thereof."
Overly broad statement, don't you think, Nathan? Would you consider it "saddening" if one were reluctant to vote for someone because the candidate happened to worship Satan? Or because he was a member of the "Heaven's Gate" bunch?
No, Paul, I don't think I was too broad in my statement. Abraham Lincoln, though he believed in God, rejected organized religion, and he didn't believe in an afterlife. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, meaning he believed in God but he also denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. George Washington was raised in the Church of England, but he rarely took communion, and many historians debate whether or not he, too, was a Deist. Now these three men comprise 75% of Mt. Rushmore, and if their religious beliefs were scrutinized in a campaign today, I don't think they'd win. So does religion really matter in one's ability to run the country? I'm not so certain.
In a world in which a lot of people perceive some big anti-Catholic bias, do Catholics or any person of another faith want to discriminate based on someone's faith? (Not that I've seen any qualms with Mormonism on this site or with my own discussion with Catholics in other venues.) Romney is getting the Know-Nothing treatment in the South and elsewhere. Most people I know of don't like to be associated with bigotry. If people are scared of a Mormon, are these same people terrified of a Muslim? Or a Hindu? I like to think that this a better nation than that, but I'm beginning to wonder if my optimism is misguided.
Fr. VF -- What in JFK's speech do you find objectionable?
Nice bypass of my point, Nathan. Let me put it more succinctly: Would you consider the fact that a person worships Satan irrelevant when it comes to your vote?
As for Mount Rushmore, the question was not, "Can he run the country?" but rather, "Knowing what you know about his beliefs, would you vote for him?" Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln did their jobs well, no doubt; but you may be right that they would not have been elected in this day and age. However, I don't think that people have actually changed all that much--only their access to information.
Would these three men have been elected if the public of their time had the knowledge which we have about candidates today? That's anybody's guess, and is rather pointless to ponder.
Kennedy bypassed the anti-Catholic vote by proclaiming, in essence, that his religion was not sufficiently relevant to him to influence his decisions for the nation. Had he publicly proclaimed a personal devotion to Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist and to the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is likely that Protestant America of 1960 would have defeated him--which would have been sad, but understandable.
Will Romney proclaim his specific belief in the holy underwear, the magic spectacles, and eternity as a "god" with his own world to rule? Doubtful. But then, it's also doubtful that the average American voter has any clue that these are part and parcel of Mormon doctrine, just as was the supposed "inferiority" of the black race until a few decades ago. And Romney is not an "average" Mormon, but rather a dynastic leader within the church.
Whether I would vote for him would depend upon the choices available. If my discomfort with his beliefs makes me a bigot, I'm sorry. But I maintain that it is my right to know what his beliefs ARE, and to take them into consideration in the voting booth.
Romney as a candidate? Yawn.
Barrack Obama is the last one I want in office. He's pro-abortion.
I didn't sidestep anything, Paul. I pointed out several important examples of how religious beliefs don't factor in to how a president does his job. If people want to take into account something that's irrelevant, that's fine. I suppose there are people who vote for candidates based on whether they preferred the Stones or the Beatles. Either way, I'm not in any position to tell people what they should consider when voting. But I do know that Romney need not assuage the fears of those who don't understand what he believes. And that's what it boils down to: one always fears what one doesn't understand. People didn't understand Catholicism in 1928 or 1960 (much of which had less to do with our religious beliefs--though they obviously played a part--but whether or not JFK would take his orders from the people or from the Pope, a foreign head of state).
As for voting for a person who worships Satan, does he/she still believe that life is sacred? Does he/she believe we need to assist the poor? What does he propose to do about saving the environment and making our country energy independent? Now, I'm going to guess that a worshiper of Satan doesn't care about the unborn or those who are in need, so that's two strikes against him. Not because he's a Satan worshiper, but because I disagree with what I assume would be his views.
As for Romney, he says he's pro-life. That's good, right? I don't approve of his stance on immigration. That's a check against him. The list of issues could go on, but yet I would make my decision based on his policy stances, not his faith.
I don't know what Mormons believe, but whatever it is, it can't be too absurd. Most non-Catholics can't fathom that we really believe we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood. When John Roberts and Sam Alito were nominated to the Supreme Court, the question of whether or not some senators would vote against them because of their Catholic faith brought a storm of controversy. I didn't feel that religion was a subject of any importance in their hearings. I care about what their judicial philosophy is and if they are qualified. Many others apparently feel that serving in public office isn't just about merit. As a result, I'll never see a non-Christian in power in my lifetime. I'm not even certain I'll see a minority in the White House. America: the land of opportunity--so long as you look like me and worship like me.
"I don't know what Mormons believe..."
For those who care, I strongly recommend finding out.
Yeah, Paul, Mormon theology is weird. But how exactly is that relevant? I'd much rather vote for someone whose theology I find strange but whose moral beliefs are rooted in a sincere belief and pretty much in line with natural law, than those lukewarm amoral nominal Catholics or Protestants who usually comprise our choices.
We are already seeing the effect of his religion on the nation. Of course he says there are "Two Truths", yet here we are, so soon after his faith becoming a issue, he is addressing the public with a speech focused completely on "Faith In America".
Commenting by HaloScan
