August 10th, 2007 at 11:35 am
The religion issue has been overblown in some areas and not covered enough in others.
Republican Rudy Giuliani is Roman Catholic, but not a practicing one. Democrat John Kerry is a practicing Roman Catholic, though a bishop has refused him communion because of his stance on abortion. Hillary Clinton is Methodist, but so is President Bush. Mitt Romney is Mormon. Barack Obama is United Church of Christ.
Could someone please tell me what sacred underwear Mitt Romney may wear have to do with his ability to govern?
Can we just accept that we should not predict the decisions a person will make because of the religion he or she espouses, and that we should probably pay attention to what that person is actually saying on the issues?
To Romney’s credit, he has made the case that just because Mormons don’t drink alcohol doesn’t mean that Prohibition would come back were he elected.
If a bishop refuses communion to Kerry or Romney, we may get a little bit of schadenfreude, but other than that, what of it? Pope Benedict’s foreign policy of appeasement isn’t something I want imposed on all Roman Catholics to believe.
There are issues that have religious overtones:
- Are you aware that Islam does not recognize a two-kingdom rule, and are you willing to stand up to not being conquered without worrying about being called a religious bigot?
- Do you believe that the Dome of the Rock should be leveled and Solomon’s temple restored in order for Christ to return? (I would hope for a No here
) - Do you believe that life begins at conception, and if so, what steps will you take to save those lives? Will you at least leave the decision to the states to decide?
- What distinctions if any can and should be made between a married man and woman and civil unions?
- Do you believe an opinion, whether or not it is unpopular, should be suppressed through discrimination laws?
- Do you believe America is the new Israel? If so, what policy decisions would you base on that doctrine?
- Do you believe certain adoption charities should be forced out of business if they have certain standards on what parents they will let adopt kids?
And there are others.
The role of religion should be recognized in decision making, but treating religious denominations like political parties demeans both the denomination and the candidates. I would ask all candidates to spare me any attempts to give credence to their values because he or she was raised a good Christian. They weren’t. Ideas and actions matter, not heritage, and frankly, some of their ideas are not good at all.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
The issue with Mitt is to evaluate exactly what Mormons consider important vs. the others who are effectively “Americanized” protestants.
However, in our context of Christianity, none of these people practice correct Christianity such as you and I would define it.
So, what are their ulterior motives with respect to the public image the present? It is less about their theology because all of the people noted above do not really practice the religion they claim to embrace. And while Mitt and George are probably the ones who most closely reflect their theology, Mitts particular theology is very much an introverted self serving theology. So in the large scope of things, we find all the politicians you mention reflect some measure of self serving theology and philosophy (including Pres. Bush).
Do we really want another self-serving president? Is Mitt the lesser of the evils?
If my only choices are Giuliana, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, or Romney, then I would vote for Romney. However, I would much rather see Duncan Hunter as the next Pres.