AmericanPapist Comments
Romney says "Mormonism is a Christian religion" and every single news agency accepts the claim uncritically. They didn't even bother to follow up by asking a critic of LDS theology. Why? The answer is: news agencies don't care about history, objective truth, or even meaningful definitions of words. In the realm of religion, especially, you are whatever you say you are.
WAC
The journal "First Things" has had Mormon contributors, and has had robust and erudite debates on this issue. The bottom line is that it all depends on how one defines Christianity. The fact that Catholics do not understand Mormonism to be Christianity (i.e., their baptisms don't count) is perfectly fine for our purposes, but it really isn't dispositive of the question for other or all purposes. Mormons understand themselves to be Christians, and the fact that we do not does not make them in any way dishonest.
Mike, no one is saying (here) that Mormons are dishonest. But we are, or least I am, saying that they are NOT Christians. The MSM hasn't a clue about what these issues are. I take no position here on whether should be baptized to hold office; but I do say Mormons are not Christians. But then, those who know me know I have addressed this canonical fact before.
Thanks for your clarification, Ed. I agree, of course, that Mormons don't meet the Catholic definition of Christian. Of course, Catholics aren't Christians under the definitions used by some fundies. I'm hardly an apologist for the MMM, but I think that asking them to call attention to the disparate understandings of the word Christian is a bit unfair given that it is not especially relevant to the stories.
What I was saying is that Mormonism doesn't meet ANY definition of Christian.
To be a Christian, one must believe in certain things, for instance, in a Trinity of substance, not just purpose (the LDS definition,) the uncreated Divinity of Christ (LDS belief states that Christ once was not,) the nature of God vs. the nature of Man (the divinitization of man is the LDS doctrine,) etc., etc. No definition, other than the Mormon definition, would include Mormonism as "Christianity." And the MSM's willingness to allow the Mormons to self-define and self-identify as Christians without any critical input is indicative of their (MSM's) lack of objectivity all around.
WAC
It is like we are in the valley of the sleepwalkers here.
Both Mitt and the MSM seem certain that something resembling JFK's historic rise to the presidency is mirrored in this story.
But it just is not.
No one is afraid Romney will become some sort of automaton puppet of his Mormon elders. So why should he address this issue?
People do question his convictions. That he is one of those "believers in convenience" he poked at today. But he does not address that.
The aspects of Mormonism that irk folks have nothing to do with the religion's resemblance to Catholicism. They are particular to his religion.
But Romney has very deftly closed the door to that line of inquiry by equivocating explaining his faith with an unconstitutional test of religion.
Proving once again that Mitt is as far removed from reality as the media is.
Wish I could pursue this more, but for now, a little story.
When I lived in Minnesota, I noticed lots of Norweigians in influential positions. So I decided to be Norwegian, and I started telling people I was Norwegian. True, I was not born in Norway, had never been there, could not speak the langauge, or name a single national dish. But I could find Norway on the map, could i-d the flag, and I knew it was cold there.
For some reason, the Norwegians in town got really ticked off at me every time they heard me telling people I was Norwegian. Even some bad Norwegians got huffy about it. They told me I was not Norwegian. And they told other people.
I felt they were very narrow minded, and I reminded them that I would never impose my definitions on them, so who were they to impose theirs on me, especially since I was one of them. But they just kept on telling people I was not Norwegian. Like it really mattered or something.
See what I'm saying? For me to declare myself Norweigian is to participate in nominalism run-amok. It's like these boat ladies running around telling people they are now Catholic priests, and the press reporting it blindly.
In my story, the Norwegians could not stop me from claiming to be Norwegian, but they had every right, and I think duty, to tell me and the world, Peters is NOT a Norwegian.
You know?
Why is it relevant for political and public office if Mormons are Christians? I agree they are not Christians but why should that be relevant for politics. Huckabee rejects important articles of the Christian faith as well (admittedly nothing like Mormonism, of course) As long as he is a moral man it should not matter in this country. There should not be a religious test for president. DON'T FORGET THAT WE CATHOLICS ARE STILL A MINORITY. Sure the evangelicals and fundamentalsts might be our allies now, but we should ask if it is not simply out of convenience and sometime Catholics may be questioned again and excluded from office.
Anthony, insofar as a man's professed religion impacts his values and thus decision-making, then a "religious test for president" is not only acceptable, but necessary.
If Romney is a faithful Mormon, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with evaluating what that has contributed to the man's make-up.
The speech did not impress me, and still convinces me to hold to my position (I'm voting for myself, since no one seems to have the connsicence that I think a president should have.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
