Today Mitt Romney delivered a speech billed as his "JFK moment"–when he spoke to the American people about his religion in a way intended to clear barriers that could otherwise stand between him and the presidency.
HERE’S THE TEXT OF THE SPEECH.
I’d like to do a detailed response to his speech, but I don’t have time at the moment, so allow me to make a few brief comments.
1) I’m not impressed with what Romney said, but before I go further, allow me to add that I’m not impressed with what John Kennedy did, either. Kennedy ran away from his religion in his speech to Protestant pastors in Houston, and while I understand the political expedience of what he did, I am fundamentally a person of faith and what I care about most is fidelity to one’s beliefs and not the political expediency of the moment.
2) A lot of what Romney said–in fact the whole first part of the speech–was simply wrapping himself in the flag and picking up the tacit endorsement of the first George Bush.
3) At one point in the speech, Romney states:
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and
explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the
very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.
Romney needs a lesson in constitutional law. This is flatly false.
Or let me rephrase: Romney either needs a lesson in constitutional law or he is deliberately misusing what the Constitution says in an effort to pull a fast one on voters. Your choice.
The prohibition on a religious test for office that the Constitution contains is a prohibition on a particular creed being a legal requirement for office. In other words, it prevents Congress from passing a law that says, "To hold this federal office, you are legally required to be an Episcopalian" or "you are legally required not be a Catholic."
It has absolutely nothing to do with what decisions voters choose to make based on a candidate’s religion. To cite an extreme example for purposes of illustrating a principle, if I don’t want a Satanist in office, I don’t have to vote for one. And if I as a voter have questions about a candidate’s religion, I am perfectly entitled–without violating the intent of the founders–to withhold my vote from a candidate until I have those questions answered to my satisfaction.
Suppose, for example, that a particular candidate for the presidency is a Quaker who takes his religion seriously. One of the distinctive doctrines of Quakerism–often times–is pacifism. I’m going to want to know whether this Quaker is one who feels that war under all circumstances is immoral and therefore he will never be willing to go to war to defend the nation’s interests.
So–contra Romney–questions about a candidate’s distinctive beliefs can be quite relevant to his fitness for office, and asking these questions does not enable the religious test proscribed in the Consitution.
4) In the speech, Romney appears to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, he says that the authorities in his church will not influence his decisions as president. On the other hand, he stresses that the values he holds on the basis of his religion will.
This might be an intelligible position if he were an Evangelical Protestant, given what Evangelicalism claims about the nature of church leaders, but Mormonism holds that its highest leaders–its prophet and apostles–speak directly for God in a way that not even the pope is capable of doing. (The pope is held by Catholics to be capable of infallibly clarifying something that God has already revealed, but he is not held to serve as a channel of new divine revelation.)
Further, the Mormon prophet has a history of weighing in on social and political issues, such as whether polygamy should be allowed or disallowed and whether black people should have the same rights or not as white people, and the prophets have gone different ways at different times.
How can Romney intelligibly claim that values but not leaders will influence his decisions when the values flow from the leaders via new divine revelation?
And isn’t it legitimate, since Romney says values from his Mormon faith will influence his decisions, to ask about the precise details of those values. If the Mormon church is softer on abortion than it should be (and it is), what does that say about Romney. Isn’t it legitimate to ask follow-up questions of Romney about the extent to which he shares his church’s position on abortion and what he would do on this question in office?
And this is just an example of a particular issue. There is also a larger issue that goes right to the heart of his Mormon faith:
5) To bend a phrase from Bill Clinton, "It’s the Polytheism, Stupid."
Something conspicuously absent from almost all press reporting on the controversy over Romney’s religion is the fact that Mormons are polytheists. That is, they believe in multiple gods. They also believe that men can become gods (and women can become goddesses).
This is a radically different vision of God and man than that taught by the Christian faith. It cuts out and replaces the central doctrine of Christianity–its understanding of God and man–and replaces it with an alien one. This means that Mormons are simply not Christians.
Yet they claim to be Christian.
And thus Mormonism is subversive of the Christian faith in a way that other polytheistic faiths, such as Hinduism or Shintoism, are not.
One of the things that is undoubtedly fueling Romney’s campaign is a desire on the part of Mormons to have a Mormon president. That’s understandable. It’s a human desire for any group of people to see one of its own achieve the highest office in the land. It doesn’t have anything to do with wanting to impose their religion on others, but it does have to do–among other things–with achieving a level of social prestige and acceptance as a group.
And this is not to be discounted. No doubt the social acceptance Catholics found in America in recent decades was in part due to the presidency of John F. Kennedy.
And now Mormons want their own Kennedy, and the social acceptance for their religion that will come along with that.
Which is precisely why Christians should be concerned with the idea of a Mormon president.
It would be one thing to elect a polytheist who makes no pretensions of being a Christian, but to elect a polytheist who claims to be a Christian–and, indeed, whose religion claims to be the true form of Christianity–would create enormous confusion about what Christianity is and what it teaches.
For anyone who holds to the historic Christian view of God and man, that alone is reason to feel very, very uncomfortable with the idea of electing a polytheist who claims to be Christian to our nation’s highest office.
Excellent comments. Would love to see what you’d do if HAD the time. Anyway, IMHO, FWLIMBW, Romney is finished.
And now Jimmy needs to do a post on the divergent views of Christian theosis vs. Mormon exaltation. Here is a primer.
The United States would prosper greatly if it were a Catholic Confessional state.
I wonder what Romneys take on the High Meadows Massacre, is.
Ut Prosim
The entire presidential field leaves me cold.
In defense of Romney he at least sticks to what he believes (even if it is quite odd) and is still married to his first wife. Unlike the only “Catholic” entry who is an embarrassment in terms of compromise of religious principles.
Mountain Meadow Massacre, that is.
It is interesting that Romney uses the title “Creator” since there is no real creation in LDS belief, only the orgaization of pre-existing eternal matter.
Absolutely dead on right.
Great points.
I am tired of the Hugh Hewits of the world who equivocate criticism of Mormon doctrine and Romney with applying some sort of unconstitutional religious test. It reminds me of the folks who said you are racist if you do not vote for Jesse Jackson.
Say what you want, but when I go into that booth to vote there is nothing you do to call me names.
One of my friends is black and he has a real problem with Mormonism’s doctrine regarding people of dark skin being a cursed race. Do Mormons still believe this? Given the fluid nature of their revelation, it is very likely that some teaching has come along that nullified this offensive doctrine. But there has been no explanation so my friend who is a devout Catholic has told me he was incapable of willing his body to perform the necessary kinesthetic moves to vote for Romney. That is how repulsed he is by the doctrine.
But Hugh Hewit dismisses such concerns as anti-Mormon bigotry. Blacks are bigots for being offended by a racist religion? Insane.
Polygamy is another issue. It is a despicable, deeply sinful, sexist, and demeaning practice. Liberals and “feminists” can pretend they are open-minded enough to accept it, but I do not. Though no longer required under penalty of Hell by the Mormon institution, I do not think they go so far as to accurately portray the practice for the moral depravity it is.
Polygamy still plays an important part in Mormonism because the first breakaway group claimed the practice was never part of true Mormon doctrine and that it was an aberration. So the main trunk of orthodox Mormonism jealously guards all their documentation of the teachings and the prophet’s practice of it (including more than thirty wives) as proof of the validity of their denomination.
And I do not care what anyone else says JFK was not the first Catholic president, but an apostate who practiced just to keep up appearances.
Which, if you think about it, is another thing that would irk American voters about Romney. He would be the first president to worship in secret.
And Guilliani would be the first president to be denied communion.
No to both. I’m going with Huckabee. I suggest checking him out. My take is that he is a godsend.
Huckabee’s too liberal for me
“Huckabee’s too liberal for me.” Ditto here.
Romney’s campaign is not being fueled by Mormons who want a Mormon president. It’s being fueled by Republicans who want a Republican president.
He represents the money-wing of the party and will serve their interests ably.
This will be an interesting test of the so-called Religious Right. Will they elect a person regardless of creed as long as they say the right things and
RULE 1 VIOLATION DELETED.
AJESQUIRE, THIS IS YOUR RULE 1 WARNING.
WE WILL NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF TROLLING ON THIS SITE.
Isn’t Alan Keyes 100% pro-life?
If he is, Catholics must vote for him, that is unless there is another 100% pro-life candidate out there.
Ut Prosim
Quite a slur ajesquire.
McCain and Thompson are both strongly pro -life
Further Romney stood up to block embryonic stem cell research. So he’s plausibly pro life, although that’s a change. Note Thompson was also once pro choice.
I’m not a McCain fan on many issues but he does have courage and has stood up for the unborn.
If Romney, Guiliani, and Huckabee are out, that leaves us with McCain or Thompson.
Seems McCain has the only realistic shot with a possible victory in New Hampshire.
Thompson’s candidacy never got off the ground.
As for McCain, I hate his maverick tendencies but I respect his personal strength.
Excellent post Jimmy.
As an aside, I always note that if you want republicans to stay home or vote third party in record numbers on election day, get Rudy McRomney nominated. If you don’t want republicans to stay home or vote third party in record numbers on election day, support someone else.
It’s that simple.
Excuse me, but I’m shocked you all aren’t talking about Ron Paul, the candidate who is most in line with Catholic teaching. Google (“Ron Paul” and “Thomas Woods”).
William
I don’t mean this to be an attack on Ron Paul, I’m just concerned. Why did a brothel owner support Paul? Did Paul say we should legalize brothels?
William,
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the CIA, the FBI, foreign bases, Social Security, wants to withdraw from NATO, and opposes the Federal Reserve. I’m not a Libertarian, so I’m not very interested in Ron Paul.
I don’t take Ron Paul seriously and do not see why anyone else should either. He’s a fringe player and as only a congressman has no real base.
In my opinion (as a Catholic), a principled Mormon like Romney is preferable to an unprincipled Catholic like Guiliani. So, I would vote for Mitt before Rudy …
I think Chesterton said something similar, but I can’t come up with the quote …
I am concerned about the secret oaths the LDS take in their temples. Why doesn’t anybody ask him about this? Clearly, even if they are considered “secret” I think the American people are entitled to know what he has sworn himself to uphold because those oaths may conflict with the oath of office or in other ways have consequences on public policy.
I agree with you MarkC
Memphis,
On what issue is Huckabee “liberal”? And how could you consider McCain pro-life when he is not?
I thought McCain was highly rated by pro-life groups and given a poor rating by NARAL. If you have contrary evidence fine, let’s hear it. Huckabee likes to raise taxes, and that’s a liberal position.
BC,
I am not certain but I believe Masons have held high public office before and they do in fact take secret oaths.
Which, like the many secrets of the Mormon faith, can be found on the internet and other sources.
My problem with Mormon secrecy is that this will be the first president who will worship in a building that requires proof of membership to get into and that is very unAmerican, in my book.
Both major parties are fielding dismal candidates. JohnD is right, conservatives could well sit this one out in massive numbers, in part because they tend to see that temproal political results are NOT the criteria by which we will all be Judged. (It’s also why liberals vote Democratic even when they hold their noses doing so: a partial political victory here is worth more to them than to conservatives).
When Mitt says, “There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.”, he is insulating himself against the loaded questions the liberal press have been throwing at him (and Huckabee). Questions like “Do you believe in evolution?”, “Is Mitt Romney a Christian?” and “Is the Bible the Word of God?”.
These questions are irrelevant to public policy and simply an attempt to paint Republicans with religious affiliation as wide-eyed, irrational, Bible-thumping extremists. Never mind that liberal Democrats routinely get a pass when they pass themselves off as “Reverend” or hold political gatherings in Churches.
OK, Romney’s formulation did not quite pass Jimmy’s sniff test, but he did better on the issue than JFK and he gave himself some needed room against the “gotcha” press corps. I’m sure he didn’t mean he will not answer a question about an article of faith which does legitimately impinge upon public policy (e.g. slavery, polygamy, just war, the nature of marriage). Perhaps he’ll clarify this point …
I’m afraid Huckabee’s pardon of the serial rapist is going to sink his candidacy …
Luckily there are tons of Mormons that don’t believe the goofy stuff. (The evidence I have for this is purely anecdotal, so take it fer what it’s worth.) But it seems like MR might fall into this group.
Ok, but why can’t the oaths of Masons also be subject to scrutiny. What someone is sworn to uphold is certainly an important issue in my book for someone who is running for the President of the U.S.
Sorry, I should have been more precise: … Huckabee’s alleged intervention on behalf of a rapist who went on to assault at least two additional women ….
What kind of name is “Mitt” anyway? And he has a son named “Tag”? What’s up with that?
Robert Novak has an article (Nov 26) describing at length why Huckabee is a “false conservative” and giving specifics. His talk is strong right now, but that’s convenient. What matters is his record which, from what I’ve seen, has tilted left.
Frankly I’m unhappy with the entire field – I might be voting against the worst candidate rather than for someone I actually like.
Pauli:
I believe the reason there are tons of Mormons who don’t believe the goofy stuff is that the LDS church has backed off a lot of the goofy stuff, i.e. it has jettisoned some of its former teachings. I used to have discussions with a former Mormon girlfriend and some missionaries that she introduced me to, and we would discuss things like becoming gods, and the “fact” that “Heavenly Father” (no article, please) had physical sex with Jesus’ mother, since that is the only possible way a woman could conceive.
These things were spelled out by one or more prophets (Brigham Young I think stated the latter, but it’s been a while so don’t quote me) in sermons that were transcribed and published under the auspices of the church.
More recently I was having an online discussion with some Mormons who flatly denied that the latter had ever been a Mormon belief, and that if it had been preached by Young it was only personal speculation. As to having our own planets and becoming gods, I don’t remember exactly what they said but they downplayed it. The main point was, that they said the only *official* beliefs of the LDS church are those found in the Articles of Faith and the Mormon scriptures. No sermons or writings of any prophet apparently count for anything, unless they are later added to the scriptures.
Of course the question then is, why bother having prophets if what they solemnly profess to have been revealed by God does not thereby become doctrine?
My point being, I’m sure that a watering-down process has been taking place over about the past 20 years or so.
I remember a few years back reading that some Christian representatives were meeting with Mormon leaders to discuss problems they had with the Mormon faith, and why they didn’t consider Mormons to be Christians. I’m afraid such discussions might be helping the Mormons in their watering-down project, so I hope they don’t continue. I think the more obvious the differences between Mormonism and Christianity, the safer people will be from being seduced by it. I’m sure that is the very reason they are toning things down. Very subtle. Deceiving. Tempting. If you catch my drift.
On the one hand, I agree with those who don’t love any of the people running for the presidency. On the other, if I listen to Clinton, Obama or Edwards for a couple of minutes, virtually anyone running from the opposing party begins to sound a lot better.
Heck, even Ron Paul sounds like a reasonable person when he’s chatting with the cast of “The View.”
I pulled the lever for Bob Dole in 96 because I didn’t care for Clinton, not out of enthusiasm for Dole. I worry that the “anybody but a dem” sentiment might not be enough.
Allow me to disabuse of your misconception regarding the pro-life tendencies of McCain.
Alan Keyes:
http://www.euthanasia.com/keyes2.html
McCain has twice voted to override President Bill Clinton’s veto of a bill that would have ended partial birth abortions.
National Right to Life:
http://www.nrlc.org/Election2000/mccain/prolife_case_against_mccain.html
McCain … ridiculed citizens who decide which candidate to vote for on the basis of the right-to-life issues he referred to them as “otherwise intelligent people.”
Seriously, where are you getting your data?
As far as the “liberal” taxation accusation for Huckabee, is concerned, I want to point you to a blog post written by economic conservative Michael Medved:
According to figures from the non-partisan Tax Foundation (based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce), Huckabee’s term as governor (1996-2007) led to a modest increase in the overall State-Local tax burden for Arkansas: from 10.1% in the year he became governor to 11.1% the last year he served. In terms of overall tax burden (state-local-federal) Arkansas remained virtually unchanged— from 30.3% (39th among the 50 states) to 30.5% (32nd place).
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, saw sharper increases in taxes during his single gubernatorial term (2003 to 2007) in Massachusetts. The state-local burden rose from 9.8% the year of his election to 10.5% his last year as governor. Meanwhile, the total tax burden went up from 31.2% to 33.9% — vaulting Massachusetts from 9th place to 7th place in the nation.
source:
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/
And please read his wonderful post on Compass while you are at his site.
I stand corrected on McCain , but address the concerns about Huckabee.
Wait a minute at NARALs site John McCain scores 0%. He may not be as pure as Alan Keyes but he’s very strong for a Senator.
The National Right to light site has John McCain as for the ban on partial birth, abortion, against Roe v Wade but for ESCR. That’s not as strong as I’d like to see: stronger than Rudy and the left but weaker than Bush.
Sorry that’s the National Right to Life not “light”
…National Right to light site…
Mephis Aggie,
What’s that organization about?
Typing too quickly again
The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches.
I really take issue with this particular statement as it blames Catholic systems for the secularization of Europe and not the dissolution of Christianity by Protestantism that started the downward spiral of relativism into the pit Secularism. In other words, it is like blaming the fire department for having too many firehouses and discounting the poor management of said firehouses as a factor in a great fire.
I found a lot of what Mitt spoke for and against worthy of praise (the true meaning of church/state separation and dogmas of secularism) but none of these are ideas that are particular to his campaign. Oddly enough, though they are ideas that practicing Catholics in the public square have been saying for years now reaction in the media seems to be lauding praise on Mitt for finally speaking out on the topic.
Finally, the speech is not beautiful. It contains imagery and allusions alright, but it fails the beauty test. It has holes where there are not supposed to be any. Jimmy already pointed out one: his belief that explaining his faith amounts to a breach of the Constitution. This is a flat-out falsehood. Another hole would be the quote I put up about the Church being responsible for the dissolution of faith in Europe.
It does not ring with truth, it simply sounds off-key.
I stand corrected on McCain , but address the concerns about Huckabee.
The quote I gave from Medved did not help? How about the fact that he wants to get rid of the IRS?
I’ve come to know some people from Southeast Asia (Pakistan/India) as well as some from the Middle East and they’ve helped open my eyes to a few things. I’ve learned to understand things from their point of view, and I think if more people understood these things better more people would support Ron Paul.
Initially I told these Muslims friends of mine that Islam is more violent and is obviously a problem. But walk in their shoes and see if they really are so crazy.
Imagine for a moment that the Muslim Pakistan was the economic and military superpower of the world. Imagine that they sent billions to US presidential candidates that supported Pakistani ends. Imagine that you as an American Christian strongly suspected that Pakistan was essentially buying your leadership off. Imagine that some radical Christians flew a plane into a Pakistani building and Pakistan responded by violently overthrowing all kinds of American leadership as they saw fit, bombing cities and causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, in addition to deaths of US military personnel. How would you react? How would other, maybe more hard right Christians react? Do you think we might start to see some Christian suicide bombers, and some Christians wanting to instigate jihad on Pakistan? Is it really so strange to observe how they react? Is it really so surprising that Saudis and Pakistanis hate the U.S. with a passion?
Osama bin Laden said that the main reason he flew planes into the trade towers was because US infidels resided in the holy land. Bin Laden’s response is of course murderous and evil, but why do we want to irritate these people by desecrating sites they consider holy? Why don’t we pull back, defend our own borders, and let that part of the world solve their own problems. The more we stick our nose in their affairs, the more we tick them off, just like we would be ticked off if they stuck their nose in our affairs. I’ve come to realize that Ron Paul is right. Get out of there and save a trillion dollars a year.
And yes get rid of the federal reserve. This unaccountable body can devalue your money to help pay for a wasteful war and there is nothing you can do to stop them. If you have any savings they are stealing from you right now. Oil is at record prices. The Canadian dollar is worth more than the U.S. dollar for the first time in my lifetime and it is because the federal reserve is just doing whatever they want with the value of your money. It’s not good.
We have to have taxes to run the government, don’t we? I’d be happy to vote for a tax-and-spend candidate who (1) could beat Rudy and (2) is seriously pro-life (i.e., hasn’t been or worked in favor of abortion rights in the past). So far Huckabee looks pretty good to me. We’ll see about the rapist pardon thing.
One final gripe about this and I will leave it alone.
I have recently had the time to actually check the poll numbers for the GOP race and was surprised to see that for weeks now Mitt has ranked third, fourth, and fifth overall. Why was I surprised? Because if you watch the news on TV, listen on the radio, or read the papers, you would think that Mitt and Rudy are practically tied.
Romney has put an amazing amount of money into his campaign and the result has been that the Fox news page devotes nearly their entire GOP election coverage to Mitt, Hugh Hewitt and a few other conservative radio hosts have become pundits for Mitt, and the liberal media just eats him up (perhaps because they know he is a loser just as conservatives know Hillary is a loser).
But the man is almost as much a non-entity as Ron Paul!
This whole speech on religion is just more free publicity.
Especially because the speech is nothing but a red herring. Mitt thinks people are treating him like JFK and he would like to disabuse them of that. But people are not worried that Mitt will suddenly become a puppet of his institutional hierarchy, like they were with Kennedy. People’s gripes with Mitt’s sincerity and the creepy tenants of his faith go completely unanswered in his speech.
He is taking a valid criticism, mischaracterizing it, and then answering that mischaracterization as wrong. Sound familiar?
The man is running on pure theater and his campaign has been a colossal waste of millions of dollars. It is time for the press to let him drop and see if he can pull himself up by his own britches like Huckabee has.
francis,
Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZq7YYDZ-zI
Memphis and Horatio, I would say I’m in pretty good company supporting Ron Paul with Catholic historian and constitutionalist Thomas Woods who has come out strongly in support of Paul. For those who may not know, Woods has written such books as How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, The Church Confronts Modernity and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History He has been an editor of The Latin Mass magazine for eleven years, and has appeared in periodicals such as Inside the Vatican, Catholic World Report, Catholic Historical Review, Catholic Social Science Review, New Oxford Review, Crisis, and This Rock. Woods wrote an “Open Letter to the Catholic Community in Support of Ron Paul” which can be found at http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods83.html . All of Paul’s positions can be found at catholicsforronpaul.com
I’m no fan of Mormonism, but I’d vote for Romney. He seems like a decent enough guy.
And when it comes to religion, what about George Bush I and George Bush II, both of whom the evangelicals supported. Bush I is a member of the Episcopal Church and Bush II is a member of the United Methodist Church. Neither of these groups are Christian by any traditional standards. The Mormon Church may be soft on abortion, but these groups are pro-abortion.
“Ron Paul wants to eliminate the CIA, the FBI, foreign bases, Social Security, wants to withdraw from NATO, and opposes the Federal Reserve. I’m not a Libertarian, so I’m not very interested in Ron Paul.”
Let me dissect your comment with commentary:
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the CIA
Sweet!
the FBI,
Cool!
foreign bases
Not so great.
Social Security
Awesome!
wants to withdraw from NATO
no opinion
and opposes the Federal Reserve
EXTREMELY AWESOME!!
RON PAUL RON PAUL! RON PAUL RON PAUL! RON PAUL RON PAUL! RON PAUL RON PAUL! RON PAUL RON PAUL! RON PAUL RON PAUL! RON PAUL RON PAUL! RON PAUL RON PAUL!
Ronpaulblimp.com
Living in Massachusetts, I’ve seen plenty of Romney, and am not a fan. For the record, I’m for Huck.
Gov. Romney displeased social conservatives here with his “pro-choice” pronouncements and the fact that he implemented “gay marriage” here despite the lack of a legislative basis for it. He did earn a little cred back, however, by opposing embryo farming for stem-cell research.
I wouldn’t blame him for the level of taxes in Massachusetts at all. The Republican party is very weak here, and the legislature has long been run by veto-proof Democratic majorities: Romney rarely vetoed bills and was rarely sustained, if ever. The state’s House Speaker is the de facto prime minister of Massachusetts, even now when the governor is a Dem.
Romney deserves some credit for taking on the religious question, even though he is following JFK’s bad example in how to do so. He seems to be saying that his public duty could override the moral obligations pursuant to his faith — not really a well-integrated approach.
I suppose I want to give him credit mainly because of how disappointed I am at people who oppose Romney for strictly religious reasons.
As for the name “Mitt” — if your first name were Willard, you’d have a nickname too.
Living in Massachusetts, I’ve seen plenty of Romney, and am not a fan. For the record, I’m for Huck.
Gov. Romney displeased social conservatives here with his “pro-choice” pronouncements and the fact that he implemented “gay marriage” here despite the lack of a legislative basis for it. He did earn a little cred back, however, by opposing embryo farming for stem-cell research.
I wouldn’t blame him for the level of taxes in Massachusetts at all. The Republican party is very weak here, and the legislature has long been run by veto-proof Democratic majorities: Romney rarely vetoed bills and was rarely sustained, if ever. The state’s House Speaker is the de facto prime minister of Massachusetts, even now when the governor is a Dem.
Romney deserves some credit for taking on the religious question, even though he is following JFK’s bad example in how to do so. He seems to be saying that his public duty could override the moral obligations pursuant to his faith — not really a well-integrated approach.
I suppose I want to give him credit mainly because of how disappointed I am at people who oppose Romney for strictly religious reasons.
As for the name “Mitt” — if your first name were Willard, you’d have a nickname too.
I wonder how many Catholics really know what Mormons believe. This is worth checking out.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=192123
I think it would be a kinder and more accurate way of putting it if, instead of
And they claim to be Christian,
you wrote
And they believe themselves to be Christian.
It’s not like they know they’re not Christians and are trying to pretend that they are. They believe that they have a different Gospel than ours, and that theirs is right and ours is wrong. But I think we can at least assume an intent to follow Christ, even if they misunderstand His nature so much that it’s practically unrecognizable to us.
I’m going to quickly post this comment, have not read any other comments. Just wanted to say, excellent post. Especially the last part about Mormonism versus Christianity. Excellent.
Just as an FYI, the names are permitting me to e-mail the various commentators… not too cool.
As an unrelated note, I’m struck by this passage:
The prohibition on a religious test for office that the Constitution contains is a prohibition on a particular creed being a legal requirement for office. In other words, it prevents Congress from passing a law that says, “To hold this federal office, you are legally required to be an Episcopalian” or “you are legally required not be a Catholic.”
It has absolutely nothing to do with what decisions voters choose to make based on a candidate’s religion. To cite an extreme example for purposes of illustrating a principle, if I don’t want a Satanist in office, I don’t have to vote for one. And if I as a voter have questions about a candidate’s religion, I am perfectly entitled–without violating the intent of the founders–to withhold my vote from a candidate until I have those questions answered to my satisfaction.
Now it would seem to me that would legitimize a Senator who said that while not being Catholic isn’t a legal requirement to be on the Supreme Court, it’s something that would prevent the Senator from voting for a Catholic nominee. The argument may be made that a justice is different in that religion shouldn’t play a role in jurisprudence, but if that is the case why do we hammer Kennedy for being pro-abortion and Catholic? For that matter, what would that say about the role faith should play in public life?
Not that I’ve got time to check up on this, but just a thought from a 1L.
Ron Paul simply believes that he is bound to keep his Constitutional oath. That doesn’t make him a Libertarian. I don’t think he is any sort of Randroid.
Do you prefer people who say beforehand that they are going to perjure themselves if elected, when they place their right hand on the Bible? .
I don’t agree with him on some prudential issues, but he and perhaps Alan Keyes are the only ones who from the get-go won’t be breaking the law and ruining their word.
I think it would help the discussion if anyone was able to provide examples where Mitt Romney (as Governor of Massachusetts) did anything to confirm Jimmy’s concerns or conversely had the opportunity to ‘do wrong’ but didn’t.
I’m not thinking about the sorts of acts that any politician or Governor might be criticized for but those specifically relating to Mormonism.
Dear Stephen Braunlich,
If the e-mail box is filled in, the name becomes linked to that e-mail address. This is helpful for carrying on off-blog conversations that might spin out from the topic. Giving an e-mail address, at this point, is optional.
The Chicken
“Ron Paul simply believes that he is bound to keep his Constitutional oath. That doesn’t make him a Libertarian.”
Maybe. But running for Presidency of the United States in 1988 as the Libertarian nominee does!
Isn’t Alan Keyes 100% pro-life?
If he is, Catholics must vote for him, that is unless there is another 100% pro-life candidate out there.
It’s not mandatory. If the 100% candidate doesn’t appear able to win, a Catholic may vote for the best of the remaining candidates. (The conditions of the “principle of double effect” have to be fulfilled for this to be morally licit.)
Sorry, I should have been more precise: … Huckabee’s alleged intervention on behalf of a rapist who went on to assault at least two additional women
MarkC,
Mike didn’t parole that evil man. The parole board did. Many people thought the creep was innocent. They were wrong. Directly blaming Mike isn’t justified, IMO.
Thanks, StubbleSpark, for the info on Huckabee. My husband’s from northeast Arkansas–in large part it is a poor, poor state in real need of a healthcare, education, & economic overhaul. It’s also one of the, ahem, “largest” states, with terrible overall citizen health. Visit rural AR and then tell me Huckabee’s too “liberal” with the social programs & the rather modest increase in taxation to fund them–the jobs aren’t coming in to let these people get off the ground (which is exactly where a lot of them are…I hate driving through some areas because I can’t tell the difference between abandoned houses and ones that are inhabited).
“I’m not impressed with what Romney said, but before I go further, allow me to add that I’m not impressed with what John Kennedy did, either. Kennedy ran away from his religion in his speech to Protestant pastors in Houston, and while I understand the political expedience of what he did, I am fundamentally a person of faith and what I care about most is fidelity to one’s beliefs and not the political expediency of the moment.”
I thought I was the only one who held that view.
Kennedy’s separation of his Faith from his role in public life has long been held to be a victory for Catholics, but I really wonder if it wasn’t the beginning of that particular brand of defeat, the Cafeteria Catholic. Kennedy taught us that it was okay to say we believed one thing, and do another. Catholics were so eager for one of their own to be President, they ratified that view.
Had Kennedy not taken that position, I think he would have become President anyhow. And even if he hadn’t, I have to wonder if Catholic “otherness” wouldn’t have served the Faith better in the long run.
“But there are some people, nevertheless–and I am one of them– who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them.”
-Chesterton, Heretics
Well, I saw and heard the speech, and I must say that I found it very inspiring. Even Pat Buchannan, a well known Catholic, said he was impressed, and said it was one of the greatest speeches he’s ever heard.
St. Augustine said that he would rather feel compunction of heart than merely know its definition.
In other words, it matters little to know the profound doctrines of the Holy Trinity if we do not live our life according to God’s laws which are written on our hearts.
I would much rather have a decent God-fearing man as President, who through no fault of his own was raised a Mormon, than a Catholic who should now better and who doesn’t practice his faith.
All authority is given from above. Jesus specifically told Pilate that his authority was given to him by God. Constantine was a Pagan Roman Emperor who became an instrument of God. It wasn’t until his deathbed that he was baptized.
A person can be a pious Catholic and be a lousy leader. A person may be a persecutor of Christians and be chosen by God, such as He did with St. Paul.
Would you vote for George Washington or Thomas Jefferson based on their religion?
Historians tell us that George Washington was, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, a deist. Deists believe in a non-personal God-Creator of the universe.
Would you rather vote for a Southern Baptist who may believe that the Catholic Church is a corrupt institution and the “Hoar of Babylon”, or a person who loves God, loves neighbor, has great ideas and is a great leader?
A husband and father’s duty is to support his family and educate his children. He does not do God’s will if he leaves his family to be a missionary in Africa and lets his family disintegrate.
A missionary’s duty is to serve the missions. A priest’s duty is to minister the Sacraments. A bishop’s duty is to tend the flock. The President of the United States has the role of leader in matters of state.
It matters little to call one self a “Christian”. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc etc etc. all call themselves “Christians”. I would vote for Mitt Romney over them any day. God hears the prayers and guides all men of good will. I believe Mitt Romney is a man of good will.
Here’s a strange comment from Huckabee. http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1776&Itemid=48
A word on libertarians and Ron Paul. While I’m sympathetic to the idea of eliminating many of the excesses of government but the FBI is not an excess. Sure they have been poorly run and misused but they are necessary. They run the stings that find corrupt mayors and state legislators, they put bank robbers in prison, they put mob bosses in prison. What is government for if not for protecting us against criminals? Be real.
Another mark of childishness is the idea of bailing on foreign bases and hiding our heads in the sand. This is a dangerous world where threats or either addressed abroad or at home – not dealing with them at all is not a real option for adults. Isolationism is the choice of the naive.
Eliminating the CIA is also exceptionally naive and hints at paranoia. How do we assess the threats against us without it? Eliminating NATO and foreign bases is to turn our back on a our treaties and our promises to Europe. How very honorable.
In short the support of Ron Paul is the mark of adolescence. Grow up and pick a real candidate.
While I’m picking fights about candidates – let me return to something posted about Huckabee at NRO yesterday.
The link to a youtube file where Huckabee is comparing his campaign success to the feeding of the 5000. While it’s pretty timely given the daily liturgy the other comment was that his rise comes from the same source! I found it pretentious and self righteous and it put me off, way off. I’m attracted to humility – the admission of sin and the need for forgiveness, the self deprecation of a humbled man. I don’t see it in Huckabee – but I’ll let you offer up counter examples.
Let me make another point – I’m not looking for someone to punch all the right slots on my checklist – although that would be great. I’m looking for a man a character.
Sorry that should read “a man of character”
It would be one thing to elect a polytheist who makes no pretensions of being a Christian, but to elect a polytheist who claims to be a Christian–and, indeed, whose religion claims to be the true form of Christianity–would create enormous confusion about what Christianity is and what it teaches.
For anyone who holds to the historic Christian view of God and man, that alone is reason to feel very, very uncomfortable with the idea of electing a polytheist who claims to be Christian to our nation’s highest office.
In other words, do not elect Romney for President because he is a known liar. He is attempting to pull a fast one over us by saying one thing about himself when he is most definitely another.
Unfortunately, lying is accepted in politicians, especially in the post-Clinton era. Character and honesty are no longer important factors to the majority of voters.
I hear Australia is supposed to be lovely for the next 4-8 years…
Foster’s lager, white sand beaches – hmm…
Stubble,
Nationally Mitt may be in third or fourth place, but the reason why he gets so much attention is that he is the leader in the first states to vote: Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, Wyoming, South Carolina.
Those are the states that his resources have been pumped into.
Memphis, if you’re really serious about “looking for a man of character”, then Ron Paul should be your man.
Here’s the Republican field, as I see it:
Ron Paul – very interesting libertarian views (I am intrigued, in an “experimental curiosity” sense, about what would happen if the Federal Reserve and Social Security went away) , but I fear his brand of “isolationism” in a globally interconnected 21st century is just a return to the 1930s
Huckabee – strong religious values, but not only does he like to raise taxes – he’s also never seen a spending bill he didn’t like. Also, he dodged the question of whether Mormonism is a cult. (His response to the reporter should have been, “Please give me your definition of a cult, and I’ll tell you if I believe Mormonism matches that definition.”)
McCain – he’s got a bit of a “moderate/liberal” stripe in his coloring, but he is for finishing the war in Iraq properly and he is against torture. Not popular positions, but he’s still standing up for them. (If he got the Repub nod, my vote for him would be weighed very heavily by who his running mate is, due to his age. I’d love a McCain/Tancredo or McCain/Hunter ticket.)
Thompson – don’t know if he’s actually pro-life. He (sometimes) talks a good talk, but then he (or his firm) also did consulting/lobbying work for Planned Parenthood. Not the most exciting of speakers, but then again, maybe we’ve had enough of “showbiz” politicians in the White House. Maybe we need a “boring” President.
Romney – not impressed with his sudden turn toward pro-life. Oh, and all the stuff above too.
Giuliani – do I need to list the reasons why he would be a disaster?
Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter – either one of them would be fine by me (edge to Tancredo). Unfortunately, they don’t register high enough in any polls to be “electable”.
Alan Keyes – talk about not registering on any polls, most people don’t even know (if) he’s running. That said, he got my vote in 2000, and after hearing him speak at the JMJ Life Center annual fundraiser, he’ll get my vote every time. The man knows his stuff – and for that reason alone, he will never be President.
Check out http://glassbooth.org to see how your own personal views match up with all the candidates.
St. Augustine said that he would rather feel compunction of heart than merely know its definition.
Actually it was Thomas a Kempis who said that, in Imitation of Christ.
Osama bin Laden said that the main reason he flew planes into the trade towers was because US infidels resided in the holy land.
That’s what they say IN ENGLISH. Along with the rest of the laundry list of grievances we all know.
IN ARABIC, for their co-religionists, they talk about the duty of jihad.
William,
I meant a man of character, not a cartoon character.
interesting article jimmy, I have to agree. Mormonism is not a part of the Christian Faith Tradition. If St. Irenaeus were alive today he’d bunch them in with the Gnostics and other heretics and heresiarchs. Guliani isn’t the only Catholic in the game… There are a few Catholic Democrats running too.. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.
All three “Catholics” are support abortion
Romney’s “religion speech” was better than JFK’s 1960 speech IMO. Kennedy spent his time distancing himself from the Catholic Church and even brought up the issues of contraception and divorce. This quote from Romney’s speech is solid:
“[T]he notion of separation of church and state has been taken by some beyond its original meaning,” Romney said. “They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in the public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”
From the perspective of evaluating a speech I didn’t have many problems with Romney’s. Your objections seem to be with the tenets of the Mormon faith, in which case there is nothing Mitt could say to impress you.
I agree with RJ.
This debate about whether Mormons are Christians just strikes me as silly. Sure, the Shiites don’t regard the Sunnis as Muslims and vice versa, but that doesn’t stop us from considering both sects Muslims in the practical sense. The fact that Mormons consider themselves Christians while Catholics do not regard Mormons as Christians (and rightly so for our purposes) is a downright silly reason to not vote for a Mormon for president. Catholicism is an organized religion and, as such, can properly make certain proprietary claims as to who is a Catholic as well as who is in full or imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. Christianity, sadly, is a collection of denominations, all of whom are divergent on major matters of doctrine in various degrees. To expect secular media to focus on the intramural debate among sectarian groups regarding the breadth of the term “Christian” is unrealistic, especially since it is NOT relevant to the campaign.
Regardless of who your preffered candidate is, if you believe in American Exceptionalism, you owe Romney a big KUDOS for his speech yesterday.
Heh
I especially liked the end: Mr. Romney also extended an olive branch to evangelical Christians suspicious of his belief in Mormon doctrine, promising to “continue speaking in vague, inoffensive language about Jesus and the Bible if you’ll agree to do the same.”
In a sense, Ott sums it up. The only was the so-called religious right can get along politically is to be vague and superficial about religion. Ironically this is borrowed from “liberal Christianity” but they are vague out of “conviction” rather than in the interest of pragmatism. I suppose you could see this political pragmatism as part of an “ecumenical movement” if ecumenical is taken in the most negative sense. The object is to avoid any real definitions or asking certain questions. E.g., as soon as someone asks “Who was/is Jesus?” they’ve entered the realm of theology.
Memphis, I find it odd that you would call the only candidate running who believes in the Consitution and has been consistent in their positions a “cartoon character”. Now if you want cartoon characters, consider Huck Huck Huckabee, Guiliani or McCain. Those are the real cartoon characters!
I agree with RJ – I disagree with Mormons theologically but personally I have no concerns about their behavior, trustworthiness etc. as a class. As for what kind of example would a Mormon send to those interested in Christianity, that’s a really good question. I have to say only if he’s a really good president would people be drawn towards Mormons.
I wonder about the converse. What if a secular “Catholic” like Rudy becomes prez? Doesn’t that harm the faith as well? Perhaps even more seriously. Of course that stellar example of personal rectitude Ted Kennedy has already done quite a bit for the publics perception of Catholics.
Has anyone read Peggy Noonan’s column in today’s Wall Street Journal?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
I didn’t see the speech and haven’t read a transcript, but I trust her judgment.
Gee you’re mighty sensitive William. I’m sorry I can’t take Mr. Paul seriously because his proposals are so radical and so manifestly infeasible. In fact I think Ross Perot was more rational. He may speak to your idealism but really I think I spelled out my view reasons clearly already, don’t you think?
Also if Mr. Paul believes in the Constitution then he must know that as president it would be his responsibility to protect and defend the US, not to duck and hide under the bed.
Also as a matter of fact the Constitution holds that treaties are binding as law and that tossing them like your NATO example would break the law he’d pledge to obey. Also as a obvious point the many many radical proposals he supports would have to run through Congress. So he knows that none of it has a ghost of chance of happening. It’s all fantasy land, about as likely in the real world as Star Trek.
Personally, I think that the Republican party is showing its true colors in that it is basically telling us that the only choice is Romney (who takes whatever position is politically expedient) or Rudy (who is in line with NARAL on social issues). The reason: they are the “economic conservatives” that have a chance to win. However, when Huckabee makes a good showing, and is a very polished and likeable candidate, and is in agreement with Christians on the issues that matter most, they attack him mercilessly because he is not fiscally conservative enough. So apparently, being socially conservative doesn’t matter, but raising taxes is a “non-negotiable.” I’m just surprised that so many who comment on this board are towing this line.
As for his influencing the release of a convicted rapist, from what I have read about it he regrets what he did. The criticism of this benefits greatly from the fact that hindsight is 20/20.
Memphis, I’m not sensitive. It was all in good fun as I thought your comment was. I am curious as to what views Ron Paul has that are so radical? Would you mean the ones that line up with the Constitution (Which is all of them of course.)? Do you think we were protecting NY on 9/11 when we had (as we still have) troops stationed in 130 countries. How is spreading our troops all over the world protecting us? The Founding Fathers would be shocked beyond belief.
I object to Huckabees overt religiousness. I think it’s a gimmick and I don’t trust it. I read him as holier than thou (Krauthammer has a new article on it if you’re interested). I would vote for him against any dem, but I’m still on the fence in terms of the primary. Moreover, since I’m not registered as a Republican (I suppose I can change that) and since I’m not in a state with a consequential primary, my opinion is of very little import and will not appreciably effect the outcome.
Still I’m open to hearing good things about Huckabee and to be fair I’ve not heard much in his defense.
What is his position on the War on Terror?
So apparently, being socially conservative doesn’t matter, but raising taxes is a “non-negotiable.” I’m just surprised that so many who comment on this board are towing this line.
I doubt that – I think many people commenting are highly critical of those that aren’t socially conservative (e.g., definitely Giuliani, possibly Romney and McCain as well).
I think everybody has their favorite “underdog”, be it Paul, Huckabee, or my favorite Tom Tancredo. Therefore, we are willing to find faults in the judgment/coverage by everybody else (especially the media) that doesn’t help our underdog. Unfortunately, nobody is willing to say “I’m leaving the party”, because it’s such a one-or-the-other scenario, and the other side scares the [expletive] out of us.
I’d love to hear how we can realistically start a 3rd party in this country. We are the only major, industrialized nation that does not have a Catholic party (even if only in name as a disguise for socialism).
Would it shock you to hear that I think George Washington was wrong about “foreign entanglements?” That might have been sound policy in 1783, although I doubt it given the Barbary pirates of Jefferson’s era.
The Constitution is not sacred writ. I like it and I agree that we’ve drifted too far from it but where’s the Constitutional beef against the FBI? They’ll comfortably within the regulation of interstate commerce clause.
Had he said the FDA or the EPA a number of other overreaching government agencies he might have my ear. But use your mind a minute. Let’s pull up stakes all around the world AND get rid of the CIA and FBI so that we will be forced to fight the next threat at home AND we won’t even know it’s coming. Brilliant truly outstanding.
I think everybody has their favorite “underdog”, be it Paul, Huckabee, or my favorite Tom Tancredo. Therefore, we are willing to find faults in the judgment/coverage by everybody else (especially the media) that doesn’t help our underdog. Unfortunately, nobody is willing to say “I’m leaving the party”, because it’s such a one-or-the-other scenario, and the other side scares the [expletive] out of us.
That’s exactly why the Democrats will unfortunately win out in the elections.
In addition to having such a pathetic pool of Republican candidates, more likely than not, conservative voters will likely go for those candidates that do not have a chance in hell of winning.
Certainly, people should vote for who they believe is the better candidate in their eyes; however, supporting a candidate that won’t have a chance of winning will only contribute to the success of a democrat win (take for example, the Perot situation).
I’d love to hear how we can realistically start a 3rd party in this country. We are the only major, industrialized nation that does not have a Catholic party (even if only in name as a disguise for socialism).
Why is Catholicism often equated with Socialism?
Also, what infallible decree exists that declares the Catholic Church as having purview over matters of economic policy?
The latter is beyond the ken of the Church.
Popes are protected in matters of Theology and can even teach theological premises infallibly if they choose to do so; however, their understanding on the social realities all over the world and how to apply moral principles to all of those complex situations is not similarly guaranteed.
These beyond the Pope’s teaching sphere.
In short, I would support a Catholic party that upholds non-negotiable Catholic values — but not one that wreaks of Socialism!
I think that Krauthammer’s article was a little harsh and based alot on what Huckabee has not said rather than what he has said. In any event, from the little that I know about him so far, he seems to be a consistent social conservative, which is more than you can say for at least three other candidates.
Huckabee seems to be taking a unusual amount of heat from NR. Of course, this is probably because he is near the front in Iowa. However, I do think there is a double-standard at work here. This might be because I have always been a registered Democrat voting Republican because I am very pro-life.
My understanding is that Huckabee’s Iraq strategy does not differ from the other candidates, sans Paul.
National Right to Life doesn’t take a stance on the plan b pill, shameful.
Krauthammer is Jewish (like I used to be) and that might account for the sensitivity to overt religious display in both of us.
Well done, Jimmy. Your post is a clear and succinct explanation of why it’s not only acceptable but even advisable to consider a candidate’s faith in deciding whether or not to vote for him. Romney (and pro-contraception Sean Hannity, who is obviously still smarting from having been needfully rebuked by Fr. Euteneuer) may not like it, but his polytheistic non-Christian religion matters in this political race.
“… but his polytheistic non-Christian religion matters in this political race.”
I am more comfortable with supporting a man of faith whose ideas of right and wrong are grounded in something that is larger than his own personal preferences, and of course I need to have reason to believe that his moral beliefs align pretty well with our best understanding of natural law; aside from that, why am I supposed to care if a candidate is a Taoist, a Confucionist, a Jew, a Morman, or a Methodist?
Mike said: I am more comfortable with supporting a man of faith whose ideas of right and wrong are grounded in something that is larger than his own personal preferences,
That’s a pretty wide net you cast.
and of course I need to have reason to believe that his moral beliefs align pretty well with our best understanding of natural law;
If it came down to a choice between Bill Clinton’s husband, or Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney, one could, I think, justifiably hold one’s nose and vote for Romney in an attempt to prevent something even worse. It is also right, as Jimmy has explained, that voters consider Romney’s polytheistic religion when deciding how to vote.
aside from that, why am I supposed to care if a candidate is a Taoist, a Confucionist (sic), a Jew, a Morman (sic), or a Methodist?
Jimmy already explained why you should care in this particular case. Whether or not a candidate’s moral beliefs align with the natural law are largely discernible by whether a candidate is a Taoist, a Confucianist, a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a Christian — and then whether or not he is an orthodox Christian who really believes and practices his faith (unlike most Catholic politicians in this country). Religious beliefs have real consequences in daily life and public policy, no matter what anybody prefers to think.
I largely agree with Esau’s last post, except that I think a Catholic Party would almost certainly be disasterous. Such a party, should it be as Esau (and I) would prefer it, would inevitably be entangled with the Church proper, and the Church has no special charism to govern, and a political party’s inevitable prudential mistakes and its morally imperfect leadership will only cause scandal and is not likely to lead to more effective government. By analogy: there is a proper role for the armed forces, but priests should not be combatants.
Jordan,
“Whether or not a candidate’s moral beliefs align with the natural law are largely discernible by whether a candidate is a Taoist, a Confucianist, a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a Christian ….”
Not at all. Natural law is that which is imprinted on the hearts of all men, and it is reflected in all the major religions, although only in the Catholic faith perfectly. More importantly, there is no evidence whatsover, and quite a bit to the contrary, that would suggest that Mormons as a group live lives in greater disparity with natural law than other Americans, including Catholics. The animus and suspicion being directed toward Romney because of his religion reek of irrational bigotry.
The idea that an orthodox Christian is more fit to be president than non-orthodox Christian candidates is not sensible. Personal character is a far better indicator of personal values than one’s confession of faith. Moreover, in addition to issues of personal character, there are issues of competency that must be considered.
In answer to an earlier question by Memphis re a the potential damage done by a “secular” Catholic like Rudy being elected … I considered a similar question when reading the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” document, in which it is said that a “grave reason” would need to be present for us to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Given the choice between a pro-choice Catholic and a pro-choice something-else I wonder if the level of scandal that could ensue by electing the pro-choice Catholic would be grave enough reason to vote for the pro-choice something-else??
“Natural law is that which is imprinted on the hearts of all men” very poetic, but to co opt the Founders, some of these truths are not so self-evident to me. I think we in the West share a deeply Christian context and understanding of morality. However that foundation does not extend much further and is not at all universal (Islam being a case in point).
I for one don’t mind extending the privilege to a fringe group like the Mormons because they profess a Christian code of ethics. But Muslims do not. They might claim to believe in the same God we do but they seem mighty lax on the Ten commandments , especially that “Do not kill” one. Well maybe some do and todays blood lust is a passing phase, I hope so, although I doubt it.
Bottom line: while I might see clear to voting for a Mormon, it would only be under the most extreme conditions that would have me seriously consider voting for a Muslim.
“Natural law is that which is imprinted on the hearts of all men, and it is reflected in all the major religions, although only in the Catholic faith perfectly.”
True, but irrelevant. Every person, regardless of their actual moral beliefs, has the natural law imprinted on his heart. But a believing, faithful Muslim or Mormon must necessarily have moral beliefs that are contrary to the natural law, or else they would not be faithful, believing Muslims and Mormons — they would be inconsistent or confused ones.
Therefore my point stands: whether or not a candidate’s moral beliefs align with the natural law is largely discernible by whether a candidate is a Taoist, a Confucianist, a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a Christian, etc.
“More importantly, there is no evidence whatsover, and quite a bit to the contrary, that would suggest that Mormons as a group live lives in greater disparity with natural law than other Americans, including Catholics.”
Again true, and again irrelevant. The topic is a candidate’s moral beliefs as they would affect public policy, not a candidate’s personal conduct.
“The animus and suspicion being directed toward Romney because of his religion reek of irrational bigotry.”
Perhaps, but your comments (those I have read — I haven’t read every single comment in this discussion) haven’t addressed a single one of the points that Jimmy has made about why it is not only acceptable but advisable for a Christian to give serious consideration to the effect voting for a Mormon might have on his country and on his fellow Christians.
“The idea that an orthodox Christian is more fit to be president than non-orthodox Christian candidates is not sensible.”
It depends on which orthodox Christian we’re talking about, but it is perfectly sensible that an orthodox Christian can be more fit to be president than non-orthodox Christian candidates (or more fit to be president than non-Christian candidates such as Romney.)
“Personal character is a far better indicator of personal values than one’s confession of faith. Moreover, in addition to issues of personal character, there are issues of competency that must be considered.”
True, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong or bigoted also to consider a candidate’s adherence to a faith that one believes is harmful to human life and happiness. It would be grossly imprudent not to weigh such considerations.
“But a believing, faithful Muslim or Mormon must necessarily have moral beliefs that are contrary to the natural law, or else they would not be faithful, believing Muslims and Mormons — they would be inconsistent or confused ones.”
Jordan, aren’t you confusing moral beliefs with theological ones here? What moral belief *must* a faithful Muslim or Mormon hold that is contrary to natural law?
“Therefore my point stands: whether or not a candidate’s moral beliefs align with the natural law is largely discernible by whether a candidate is a Taoist, a Confucianist, a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a Christian, etc.”
I still do not see how. Although Catholic moral theology is more fully developed than that of other Christian denominations, I am not aware of any net deficiency attributable to Mormons in this respect when compared to such denominations. If you are, then would mind sharing them?
“The topic is a candidate’s moral beliefs as they would affect public policy, not a candidate’s personal conduct.”
Fair enough, but how exactly are the moral beliefs of Mormons understood to be so inferior that they mandate higher scrutiny than candidates of other confessions?
“Perhaps, but your comments (those I have read — I haven’t read every single comment in this discussion) haven’t addressed a single one of the points that Jimmy has made about why it is not only acceptable but advisable for a Christian to give serious consideration to the effect voting for a Mormon might have on his country and on his fellow Christians.”
Well, I have actually, and I agree it is advisable, just as it is advisable to consider the effect of voting for a Jew or a Methodist; I just don’t understand why it apparently is more advisable and after giving due consideration I am unable to discern the cause of concern.
“It depends on which orthodox Christian we’re talking about, but it is perfectly sensible that an orthodox Christian can be more fit to be president than non-orthodox Christian candidates (or more fit to be president than non-Christian candidates such as Romney.)”
Well, “can be” is sure doing some heavy lifting here. The irritation that you and others seem to have over the fact that Mormons consider themselves Christians is odd. We don’t; they do; so what? In any event, the relevancy of this intramural vocabulary debate to a presidential campaign escapes me.
“… but that doesn’t mean it is wrong or bigoted also to consider a candidate’s adherence to a faith that one believes is harmful to human life and happiness.”
I agree, and therein lies the rub. While I disagree strongly with Mormon theology and find much of it downright weird, I have not observed shortcomings in moral theology that are inimical to human life and happiness.” Can you be specific on that?
Fred Thompson has already been blessed by the National Right to Life, and several state based right to life groups. Thompson has a 100% pro-life voting record.
But Thompson is pro-war. I’ll stick with the only candidate who is in line with John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict. That would be Ron Paul.
What moral belief *must* a faithful Muslim or Mormon hold that is contrary to natural law?
Two of the big ones — that it is practically a matter of indifference whether or not one regards abortion and contraception is absolute evils. As I understand it, Mormonism currently allows for abortion in exceptional cases, and contraception is permitted although discouraged.
“Therefore my point stands: whether or not a candidate’s moral beliefs align with the natural law is largely discernible by whether a candidate is a Taoist, a Confucianist, a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a Christian, etc.”
Although Catholic moral theology is more fully developed than that of other Christian denominations,
That’s almost an understatement — as it stands, most Christian denominations don’t even have such a thing as “moral theology” and their members and leaders would give you a blank deer-in-the-headlights stare if you asked them about it.
I am not aware of any net deficiency attributable to Mormons in this respect when compared to such denominations. If you are, then would mind sharing them?
Look, the point I made is simply that each religion teaches that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, and that if you find out what a religion teaches about morality, then you will know what their most devout and knowledgeable adherents believe about morality. Thus, “whether or not a candidate’s moral beliefs align with the natural law is largely discernible by whether a candidate is a Taoist, a Confucianist, a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a Christian.” It’s not absolutely discernible, though, because most members of any religion are bound to be nominal or lukewarm or illiterate regarding their religion’s moral teachings. They may or may not know and agree with what their religion says about morality.
Fair enough, but how exactly are the moral beliefs of Mormons understood to be so inferior that they mandate higher scrutiny than candidates of other confessions?
I never said they mandate “higher” scrutiny. The same calculus that I apply to Mormon Romney I also apply to Catholic Giuliani or Dodd and to Baptist Huckabee and to whatever it is Fred Thompson is.
The irritation that you and others seem to have over the fact that Mormons consider themselves Christians is odd. We don’t; they do; so what?
It can’t be relativised like that, Mike — it’s not merely that we don’t consider them to be Christian, it’s that Christianity is a defined quantity and they are indisputably excluded by the definition. I’m no more irritated by Mormons confusing people about what Christianity means than I am about any other instance of people misleading others (whether deliberately or not).
In any event, the relevancy of this intramural vocabulary debate to a presidential campaign escapes me.
The Christian faith is the natural birthright of every human soul, and it’s troubling to see such a question reduced to the status of a mere intramural vocabulary debate — words describe real things, and when they don’t they lose their value — if “Christian” applies both to Christians and to Mormons, then the word basically means anything somebody would like it to mean, which is another way of saying it doesn’t mean anything at all. Anyway, I think the relevance of the question was explained well by Jimmy. I don’t think the potential cultural effect of a Mormon presidency is necessarily the greatest consideration a Christian voter should keep in mind, but I think it is one valid concern he ought to have.
While I disagree strongly with Mormon theology and find much of it downright weird, I have not observed shortcomings in moral theology that are inimical to human life and happiness.” Can you be specific on that?
I mentioned two matters of morality above. It should also be kept in mind that any false religion is bound to be deleterious to human life and happiness, and not just due to moral teachings, but simply because we are made for God and false religion drives a wedge between us and God. But those are not particularly political matters.
Jeb Protestant:
And when it comes to religion, what about George Bush I and George Bush II, both of whom the evangelicals supported. Bush I is a member of the Episcopal Church and Bush II is a member of the United Methodist Church. Neither of these groups are Christian by any traditional standards. The Mormon Church may be soft on abortion, but these groups are pro-abortion.
At least those denominations are monotheistic. As appalling as abortion is, the definition of Christianity does not hinge on opposition to Roe v. Wade. It depends on certain claims about God, including — as a fundamental foundation rooted in Judaism — monotheism, the belief in one deity.
Here’s what Mr. Huckabee says on his site about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and homosexual unions…
“I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been
clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.”
“I am opposed to research on embryonic stem cells.”
“I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life.”
That sounds good to me. Catholic Answers talks about the “Five Non-Negotiables” as being totally against the three items mentioned above along with human cloning and euthanasia. I don’t know Mr. Huckabee’s views on those but I would assume he is against them. I hope he wins. I think he would make a fine president.
Taxes (I think federal income tax should be outlawed), illegal immigration (we need a big wall along our southern border and more guards to protect it) and the global war on terrorism (Iran… your party’s next) are all vital issues to our nation’s security but they have to be subordinate to “The Big Five”. What say you, fellow authors?
I say which of “The Big Five” does Ron Paul not meet?
He doesn’t meet “The Big One:” he can’t get elected. And yes, I know it’s incredibly unfair and undemocratic that who can win elections in our system depends almost entirely on the media and party bigwigs. But that’s the system we have. Getting it to produce the best results it can is more important to me at this point than taking a stand against it.
francis, personally, I vote my conscience rather than who, “has a chance”. Why let the media’s ignoring him win? In any case, if he’s deemed “electable” after the first few primaries, will you then consider him? He keeps inching upward. Today’s Washington Post has now put his chances ahead of Fred Thompson. The bookies give him 6 to 1 odds of becoming president. Two weeks ago my wife and I attended a rally for Ron Paul here in SC, an early primary state and around 500 folks showed up. More than any other Republican has drawn. And you should have seen Sean Hannity choke the other night when Zogby told him that Ron Paul could surprise some front runners in NH. On top of that, this quarter he will be the number one fundraiser among Republicans. These are lots of donors giving small amounts. I sure wouldn’t write him off just yet.
Bubba,
Neither Mormonism, Judaism, Mohammadenism, Episcopalianism or United Methodism teaches the God of the Bible. That’s the key.
Ron Paul President
Mike Huckabee Vice President
I second Dan Hunter.
What a combo!
Sure, if Ron Paul becomes electable, I’d be happy to consider him. That’s exactly what I did for Huckabee. If I was fortunate enough to live in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, I’d probably approach the question differently, since I’d have a significantly greater voice in *determining* who was electable.
Interestingly, the unofficial talk in the Ron Paul camp is Ron Paul president and Judge Andrew Napolitano vice president. The judge speaks highly of Ron Paul and calls him the “modern day Thomas Jefferson”.
francis, here in South Carolina, at least from my perspective, Ron Paul is electable.
George Washington was a conservative, by today’s standards, fundamentalist, Episcopalian. Ben Franklin gave lots of money to the evangelist George Whitfield. Thomas Jefferson used federal funds to send Bibles to the indians. He had the Bible and Isaac Watts’ hymnal be the reading texts for the first public schools in (Virginia or DC, don’t remember which)
Deists believe in a -personal- God who created the universe. They believed in Intelligent Design.
Aggie, you may not know it, but we live in a federal republic. Law enforcement is a local matter, not a federal matter. IF there were no FBI, there would still be law enforcement on the local and State level. The purpose of the FBI was to investigate (hence the name) crimes that crossed State boundaries, and to give that information to the local officials so that the suspects could be arrested. They were not intended to be a federal paramilitary, as they have become.
Paul’s proposals worked for at least 170 years, in America. That is, after all, the Constitution, the law. If you desire tyranny so much, there are countries that have that kind of government, such as Venezuela, Cuba, mainland China, Europe, etc.
Nations are allowed to withdraw from treaties.
If you really think that America is a fantasy land, and we must submit to the Yoke, then you have either despaired, or you prefer tyranny, and are an enemy of the Republic. My guess in reality is that you have never been properly taught your civics or your history, and don’t know any better.
Huckabee used to be a pastor, his religion is genuine.
I think he probably agrees with you in the War on Method (undeclared and therefore illegal, it wouldn’t be hard to have gotten a lawful Congressional Declaration of War on 9/12. . .)
Huckabee is no longer an underdog, he is leading in Iowa, and is in the top three everywhere else.
I have it from Jerry Pournelle that NR has been taken over by the neo-cons, or as he likes to call them, neo-Trotskyites or neo-Jacobins, who came over from the Democrats after the 1968 revolution in Chicago. They don’t like social or paleo conservatives.
Based on his record in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I’m not at all convinced that Romney is a social conservative, or has transcendent morals. That he is what an acquatance calls a “Texas Mormon” or possibly a “Utah Mormon” neither of which, in this particular parlance, actually live by the dictates of their religion, rather like most Catholic Democrat politiions, and one notable Catholic Republican.
If both parties elect pro-aborts, it might be time to vote third party, that is how the Whigs got replaced by the Republicans, because the Whigs were afraid to take a strong stand on slavery and abolition. However, we should expect to lose one election if we do that, and if she-who-must-not-be-named is elected the catastrophe that would ensue might prevent that strategy from working.
Ron Paul only can’t get elected if enough people don’t vote for him becasue they think “he can’t be elected” If he is a non-felon citizen over 35 years of age, he can be elected. Self-fulfilling prophecies of despair are unhelpful in the extreme. Paul actually has a substantial chance of drawing significant support from anti-war Democrats, over and against Barak Husein Obama and She Who Must Not Be Named.
There hasn’t been even one caucus yet. We aren’t down to the federal elections yet. It is a fine time to support who you agree with the most, later comes the time for more prudential decisions.
Dan Hunter, and Alan Keyes as head of the GOP, to give speeches to the troops and help restore the GOP to beling the pro-life, abolitionist party.
Cartoon about mormonism
Take a look.
If he believes this… well…
What do you think?
In my 34 years, I have cared little for politics, seeing it as the realm of the debauched and unsaved.
Ron Paul has changed that.
He may not win, but he has shown me what true leadership with integrity can look like.
I’d rather lose with Paul (or his integrity-laden equivalent) than win with those whose doctrine is tossed to and fro, as politically expedient.
I also have to agree that the speech doesn’t impress me either. There are 2 occasions where he contridicted himself. How he says that he won’t serve one religion, yet, he claims also that he’s going to uphold Mormon Doctorine. In essence I think his speech is a cop out. What he should have done was say what he exactly believes, and how his “community” influences his descision making, that’s all that we’re really trying to ask here, but he keeps dodging the question.
Full disclosure: I am a huge Fred Thompson fan.
Mitt’s speech caused me to investiage Mormonism more fully. I had been ambivalent. Not any more. Archaeoloy has proven that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. Their past history slandering the Catholic church doesn’t help matters. The whole thing is based on lies, plain and simple. Mitt can’t just stand up and give a speech and make all of these issues go away.
If Mitt is nominated, I would probably leave the Republican party and I’ve been a staunch supporter since 1980.
“…National Right to light site…”
“What’s that organization about?”
It’s the right of little kids to be born and see the light of day!
Restoring the Constitution is the primary goal of candidate Ron Paul. he is a pro-life obstetrician and 10 term Congressman. He wants to eliminate the ILLEGAL income tax, the ILLEGAL Federal Reserve – but most importantly, the ILLEGAL war in Iraq.
Ron Paul does have a chance to win if the American people wake up and see how the USA and our liberties are being stripped away piece by peice. We can expect more of the same from any candidate other than Ron Paul.
We can expect more of the same from any candidate other than Ron Paul.
Generally, generalizations are false. ‘-)
A Simple Sinner:
I’ve seen that cartoon before. I don’t know how closely it actually corresponds to past or present Mormon teaching. Saying it’s banned by the Mormon church doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bringing their teachings to light and they don’t want them brought to light; it could also mean that it’s a misrepresentation of said teachings.
Anyone out there have first-hand knowledge about Mormon doctrine (i.e. a past or present Mormon)? I’d love to know if that cartoon is accurately portraying Mormon teaching.
A Simple Sinner:
I’ve seen that cartoon before. I don’t know how closely it actually corresponds to past or present Mormon teaching. Saying it’s banned by the Mormon church doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bringing their teachings to light and they don’t want them brought to light; it could also mean that it’s a misrepresentation of said teachings.
Anyone out there have first-hand knowledge about Mormon doctrine (i.e. a past or present Mormon)? I’d love to know if that cartoon is accurately portraying Mormon teaching.
This http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0112.html is the best source of information concening the Mormon religion.
I meant to include, “that I’ve seen”.
You ALL NEED TO CHILL OUT. We’re talking about a political leader here, not the next pope.
Personally I find it very comforting that Harry Reid and Mitt Romney can both be “polytheistic Mormons” and on complete and opposite sides of the political spectrum, and if their history is any guide, on opposite sides of the character spectrum as well. Are they both taking secret orders from the Apostles in SLC? Come on, grow up, get away from the catholic-internets for ten minutes and look around.
My point here is that a political candidate’s character, not official religious affiliation, or theological professions, is the most important thing. For that matter, Ronald Reagan was a deistic, non-Churchgoing, astrology-believing old-line protestant. I think he did okay in the leadership department despite.
Really common-sense and compassion ought to be enough to battle this kind of blinkered religious bigotry, but since so many of the catholic-interneters are recovering protestants, let me caution with a quote from the first letter of John:
13 This is how we know that we remain in him and he in us, that he has given us of his Spirit.
14 Moreover, we have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as savior of the world.
15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God.
and one from Mitt Romney:
“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”
Is Mitt Romney a polytheistic heathen, a semi-Christian post-protestant, or a Christian who worships “what you do not understand,” in the manner of a first-century Samaritan? They were polytheists, too, by the way. I don’t remember Jesus throwing the Samritan woman down the well, but telling her to live her life uprightly and with character…can we ask more of a political leader?
I agree, Tom. Completely.
Tom,
I think the astrology crack on Reagan was unfair and false. Otherwise I agree that Romney is worth a look.
Well, it is widely accepted that Nancy was into astrology, and this does not seem to be disputed. It was also fairly widely reported that Reagan consulted astrologists, especially earlier in his political career, and I’m not aware that he ever denied this — which of course does not necessarily mean it is true. Given these reports I don’t think Tom’s assertion was reckless, even if it was somewhat presumptuous. Reagan was a great president and a good man, but his theology was utterly unmoored to any orthodoxy whatsoever. A fair reading of the record would, I think, suggest that Reagan did dabble in astrology, but did not seem to give it the importance his wife did.
I respect Romney and think he is a good man. I won’t vote for him because of his politics, not because of his Mormonism. I do see his Mormonism being in the news as a great opportunity for all Christians to learn what Mormons believe. That’s why I posted the article on Mormonism from Catholic Educators website.
In fact, if I weren’t so sold on Ron Paul, I might have seriously considered Mitt.
He wants to eliminate the ILLEGAL income tax, the ILLEGAL Federal Reserve – but most importantly, the ILLEGAL war in Iraq.
I.e., he is a crackpot who thankfully doesn’t stand a chance of being elected. I’m not necessarily a fan of any of those things, but like it or not all three are perfectly legal.
What’s with the popularity of Ron Paul amongst Catholics here in these weblogs — even at Shea’s?
You’re telling me that Ron Paul doesn’t strike you folks not only as yellow but also senile?
With all these hopeless votes going for such Republican losers, forget it then —
Might as well send out the welcome wagon for Hillary!
There goes the White House!
>And Guilliani would be the first president to be denied communion.
No, with the exception of Kennedy being a nominal Catholic (at best), we’ve had nothing but non-Catholic presidents, so almost all of them of them would be denied communion.
Apparently, Ron Paul wants to engage with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Evo Morales…. with friends like that… as the saying goes.
God Bless,
Matt
“With all these hopeless votes going for such Republican losers, forget it then” And what “winner” do you see among the lot Esau? Ron Paul is the real thing. As I’ve said, I support him becuase his policies are the ones that are most in line with my Catholic beliefs. For example, on abortion, the war and torture, they line up well with Pope Benedict and JPII. That’s good enough for me. Check out http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods83.html
I agree, Esau. Ron Paul does not seem like presidential material. Then again there is no Republican candidate I like. Mike Huckabee isn’t all that bad, I suppose, though I don’t like the idea of a Baptist minister who denies evolution in our nation’s highest office.
Seeing as I don’t belong to any political party, and will not at least until these elections are over and I can better see where the Republicans are headed as a party, I’m just going to cynically wait for the primary results and then decide which, if either, major party candidate is sufficently less bad than the other to vote for.
“Ron Paul does not seem like presidential material.” I just love these superficial judgments. I guess someone who reveres the Constitution of the United States and for 20 years has held it to be his voting guide in the US Congress just isn’t “presidential material”. How sad that it’s come to this.
As for Huckabee, as his record as governor of Arkansas comes to light I am convinced he’ll lose the support he seems to be getting now.
Ron Paul is a kook who will leave our nation defenseless in the face of terrorism.
Disband the CIA? Does he have any idea how insane this sounds? Like the Church, the CIA has seen its dark days but, also like the Church, it has done much good.
This is indicative of a mind truly out of touch with reality. He thinks he protect America by not fighting the war on terror and gutting our nation of her intelligence resources?
Not even the looniest nutter on the Democratic fringe has seriously entertained such self-destructive policies.
That, combined with the groups of conspiracy-theory nutjobs and rabid antisemites that have been flocking to his campaign, gives us the view of a man desperate beyond reason to assume the mantle of US President.
He has absolutely no chance of being nominated nor elected. I wish his supporters, especially those who are Catholic and pro-life, would do the right thing and get behind a more rational candidate like Huckabee.
Huckabee’s campaign is taking apart competitors who have been outspending him some 20 to 1. He has toppled Thompson, Guilliani, McCain, and Romney but he needs more help because he does not have 10 million to give to Fox news for made-up news events like the other moneyed candidates.
Stubble, so lets just “gut” the Constitution. And as for who is supporters are, lets not forget that more folks in the military have given to the Ron Paul candidacy than to any other presidential candidate, in either party. So do you think Catholic historian Thomas Woods, who is a strong Paul supporter is a “conspiracy-theory nutjob”? I think not. And as for the “kook who will leave our nation defenseless in the face of terrorism”, maybe that better applies to Clinton and Bush.
And as for the “kook who will leave our nation defenseless in the face of terrorism”, maybe that better applies to Clinton and Bush.
That’s right —
The U.S. has been attacked on U.S. soil how many times since 9/11?
Don’t get me wrong — Bush has his issues, I admit, but there are those few upsides.
Yet, if it were up to Ron Paul, the U.S. would be handed down to the terrorists complete with a bow tie for Christmas!
The U.S. has been attacked on U.S. soil how many times since 9/11?
Because it was attacked so many times prior, right? Has there been a fundamental change to militant Islam in the last six years such that we should see increasingly many attacks on U.S. soil, and the lack of such attacks provides evidence of Bush’s success?
Don’t get me wrong — Bush has his issues, I admit, but there are those few upsides.
I don’t think you’ve remotely shown that the lack of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 is statistically significant, let alone that it’s the result of Bush’s policy.
Yet, if it were up to Ron Paul, the U.S. would be handed down to the terrorists complete with a bow tie for Christmas!
Absolutely not. But at least under a Ron Paul administration, the U.S. would retain the essential liberties that make it the country I love, even in the face of foreign opposition. And it seems reasonable to me that his non-interventionist foreign policy would be far more likely to prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil than the string of foreign invasions we’ve committed under the Bush administration.
“I don’t think you’ve remotely shown that the lack of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 is statistically significant, let alone that it’s the result of Bush’s policy.”
What a joke – it’s next to impossible to determine “statistical significance” of attacks on our soil given their rarity and the short time frame. What an absurd standard. Are you going to wait until the p value crosses 0.05 to defend the country?
Ron Paul is a joke and this comment is so naive I’m amazed you signed it.
” And it seems reasonable to me that his non-interventionist foreign policy would be far more likely to prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil”
Why would that be? Do you believe they’d hate us any less? Look at history: it is our weakness that makes us more likely to be attacked. The Islamic radicals would love Ron Paul – it’d be open season on Americans all around the world, because we surrendered in advance. Honestly Ron Paul sounds like Neville Chamberlain.
You’re living in a fantasy land if you think disengaging from the Middle East would be be anything other than a sign of weakness and would be greeted with over-arching joy by all of our enemies. They’d be dancing in the streets and burning US flags and bragging how they chased out the “Great Satan”. Just go back to your Star Trek re-runs and leave foreign policy to the adults. Or read a history – try Paul Johnson maybe you’ll learn something.
>And Guilliani would be the first president to be denied communion.
No, with the exception of Kennedy being a nominal Catholic (at best), we’ve had nothing but non-Catholic presidents, so almost all of them of them would be denied communion.
“Would” has different meanings in these sentences. In the first, it means “will be”; in the second, it means “would have been if they had tried.”
So do you think Catholic historian Thomas Woods, who is a strong Paul supporter is a “conspiracy-theory nutjob”?
I don’t think Woods is a “conspiracy-theory nutjob,” but knowing Woods’ stances on a lot of things, with which I disagree, I’m not surprised he’d be a Paul supporter. Quite a lot of conspiracy-theory nutjobs do support Paul, though, which ought to tell you something.
Really, I tend toward the conservative end of things anyway, and a libertarian fringe candidate like Paul will not normally attract my vote. It’s not easy to reconciled libertarianism with Catholic social doctrine (not that the politics of the Democrats and Republicans is exactly in line with Catholic social doctrine either).
By the way: Bill Clinton received communion in Soweto, South Africa March 29, 1998.
What a joke – it’s next to impossible to determine “statistical significance” of attacks on our soil given their rarity and the short time frame.
And yet you’re the one making claims as to their evidential value in defense of the Bush administration. All you’ve done with this statement is concede my point.
Why would that be? Do you believe they’d hate us any less?
Yes, I believe that when you do fewer things for people to hate you for, they tend to hate you less. Do you honestly believe that people hate America solely because of who we are and not at all because of what we’ve done?
Look at history: it is our weakness that makes us more likely to be attacked.
Really? So would you call the Bush administration “weak” since the attacks happened during Bush’s watch? What was it about 9/11/2001 that made us significantly weaker than 9/11/1999 or 9/11/1994, when another president (whom I’m guessing you would consider “weaker” than George Bush) was in office?
The Islamic radicals would love Ron Paul – it’d be open season on Americans all around the world, because we surrendered in advance.
Your irrational fear is insufficient reason for me to give up my civil liberties.
You’re living in a fantasy land if you think disengaging from the Middle East would be be anything other than a sign of weakness
I think it would be a sign of reason and rationality. We shouldn’t be there in the first place. It’s not a just war. It’s not our business. The vast majority of people there want us gone. Who cares if it’s a “sign of weakness”? “I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” I would rather show a sign of weakness and do the right thing than continue to do the wrong thing and appear to be strong.
and would be greeted with over-arching joy by all of our enemies.
I have no doubt that the withdrawal of uninvited military units in a person’s homeland would be greeted with over-arching joy. Is that a problem? People who are joyful tend to be much less inclined to blow themselves or others up, wouldn’t you agree?
They’d be dancing in the streets and burning US flags and bragging how they chased out the “Great Satan”.
I’d rather they burn our flag than our president burn our constitution.
As may be obvious, I’ve ignored your ad hominem arguments and inflammatory remarks; they contribute nothing to productive conversation.
One problem with libertarians is that they believe that the Constitution is a libertarian document. It just isn’t. The Federal Reserve and the income tax may be good things or bad things, but they simply are not unconstitutional things. Regarding the war in Iraq, at least a reasonable argument can be made that it is unconstitutional, although that argument is by no means compelling or clear-cut. As for the “gutting” of our constitution, that is absurd rhetoric.
Now all that said, I do admire Paul. He appears to be a man of integrity, even if he is naive regarding America’s practical ability to be isolationist. And I think he’s smart enough that he’d figure his rigid ideology would give way to practicality once in office. But he is a fringe candidate with no practical chance. People who support fringe candidates ultimately are trading having an impact for the opportunity to feel good about themselves.
Jeremy,
You’re right my arguments are inflammatory. I’m not really trying to convince you (doubt that’s possible) and I’m indulging myself by letting my disdain show. Ridicule might be fun (and way too easy here) but it’s unseemly and uncharitable, sorry.
But for the sake of the argument in what way has Bush harmed the constitution? Seriously now, He went to congress for the war and for each piece of legislation. Isn’t that a bit of an over statement?
Also I do think radical Islamists really do hate us for who we are. It’s what they’ve been saying for years, all over the world from the UK to Iran. There are literally thousands of examples. They are a radical philosophy built on envy and bent on conquest. Backing down does nothing to soften your enemies stance. Why would they slow down and fight us less vigorously if they see they are winning? It doesn’t make psychological sense. Much more logically those that hate us in the past will continue to hate us and perhaps add contempt for our weakness and unwillingness to fight to their list of reasons. Do you really think that folks who want to behead a school teacher over a Teddy bear are going to suddenly see reason?
When it comes right down to it a critical question for Ron Paul and for you Jeremy is when would you fight? What would you do to defend us? A president has the responsibility and is in a unique position to defend his country. If Ron Paul is serious about eliminating the FBI and the CIA how does he imagine we will track the threat? Just address that one question and I’ll know if you’re serious or not.
You know, Memphis, every time I see Hollywood release crap like Golden Compass and Da Vinci Code, I understand at some level why they hate us. While some Islamists may hate all Christians for existing, I think a lot of mainstream ones hate us for what they do, and where we stick our noses into. I think it’s uncharitable and unrealistic to mock Jeremy for thinking otherwise, even if you disagree.
As far as damage done, the Patriot act dissolves many of the Constitutions rights, including the 4th Amendment’s right against warrantless searches and seizures. The framers had just gone through times of war and had seen how the law’s powers could be abused, and therefore required a warrant. By removing this to make life easy on law enforcement, we are giving up what makes us unique.
And speaking of which, since the CIA’s very mission is to break laws around the globe to get US what WE want, to hell with anyone else, it may be of great practical worth, but is it moral? Have we decided we’re gonna chuck off morality and be pragmatists here?
Ridicule might be fun (and way too easy here) but it’s unseemly and uncharitable, sorry.
Apology accepted.
But for the sake of the argument in what way has Bush harmed the constitution? Seriously now, He went to congress for the war and for each piece of legislation. Isn’t that a bit of an over statement?
Oh, believe me — I have issues with Congress as well 🙂 They’re certainly complicit in the unconstitutional curtailing of our civil liberties.
Also I do think radical Islamists really do hate us for who we are. It’s what they’ve been saying for years, all over the world from the UK to Iran.
I don’t deny that they hate pretty much all kafir as such. But Europe is just as kafir (if that word can be used as an adjective) as we are, and yet they’re targetting less often. I don’t think it’s just because they’re a smaller target: I think it’s because they don’t engage in the same kind of foreign policy that U.S. has engaged in. I believe our foreign policy makes us a bigger, more hateful target for radical Islam than the rest of the world.
Why would they slow down and fight us less vigorously if they see they are winning?
Every time America does something wrong (such as enter into an unjust war or further curtail our citizens’ civil liberties) they’ve already won. Many people who defend Bush’s foreign policy like to say “They hate us for our freedom,” but then ignore that it may be a major goal in their war for us to curtail our own freedom!
When it comes right down to it a critical question for Ron Paul and for you Jeremy is when would you fight?
When foreign military lands on our soil or I’m drafted into a just war. Terrorists are not military: they’re effectively the same thing today as pirates were in the 16th and 17th centuries, and should be treated as such.
A president has the responsibility and is in a unique position to defend his country. If Ron Paul is serious about eliminating the FBI and the CIA how does he imagine we will track the threat?
He’s not; many people here are apparently misinformed. To quote from his website, “Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.”
Jeremy,
Nice. I actually agree with Paul’s statement on the FBI and CIA.
Jarnor23: CIAs mission is to break laws? Strong claims require strong evidence, have any? Not to say that the CIA doesn’t break laws or hasn’t broken laws in the pass but as part of it’s mission?
Also I don’t buy that we’ve lost our right s to reasonable search and seizure due to the Patriot act. Just tell me of a single case of a citizen loosing those rights.. I or one think that if you’re calling known Al-Qaeda numbers in Afghanistan it constitutes probable cause to tap your phone. A judge still reads and signs each warrant. Totally constitutional.
Finally and probably most fundamentally I don’t think liberating Iraq was wrong. Poorly executed, but not wrong.
Let me ask you seriously, f you believe in liberty, why don’t you believe in liberty for Arabs?
Even if by chance Ron Paul doesn’t become the next president, hopefully, his vast support will help edge the Republican party back to its truly conservative roots.
Ron Paul will not win either the nomination or the presidency. Paul is just a local Congressman and is under qualified because of that alone. If he does run in the general as an Independent he will assist the Democrat to win, just like Ross Perot helped elect Bill Clinton. Then the GOP as a minority party will retreat to it’s core base and it’s not unlikely that it would become for a time at least more conservative. More philosophically pure yet electorally weak. That’s not what I hope to see.
Nice. I actually agree with Paul’s statement on the FBI and CIA.
Good! I’m really curious where the idea that he wants to disband those groups came from. Until this thread, I’d never heard such an accusation.
Also I don’t buy that we’ve lost our rights to reasonable search and seizure due to the Patriot act. Just tell me of a single case of a citizen loosing those rights..
I have a friend, a citizen who shortly after 9/11 drove to visit family in New York. His credit card company flagged his gasoline purchases as “suspicious,” and reported it to the FBI, who froze his assets, causing his rent check to bounce and ultimately resulting in his eviction, since he stayed in New York (state) for about a month. I can’t say definitively that the USA PATRIOT act or other Bush administration-era decisions caused this, but stories like his are not uncommon.
I for one think that if you’re calling known Al-Qaeda numbers in Afghanistan it constitutes probable cause to tap your phone.
The warrantless wiretapping program gives blanket permission to tap any call outside the U.S., not just those to known terrorists.
A judge still reads and signs each warrant. Totally constitutional.
No, he doesn’t. That’s why there’s such a furor over the warrantless wiretapping program authorized by the president’s executive order. There is no judicial review: if you make a call to anywhere outside the U.S., your call can be tapped and monitored and recorded with no oversight whatsoever.
Finally and probably most fundamentally I don’t think liberating Iraq was wrong.
As far as I can tell, it did not fulfill the criteria listed in the Catechism for a just war. In particular, it does not seem to fulfill the criterion that “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.”
Let me ask you seriously, if you believe in liberty, why don’t you believe in liberty for Arabs?
I believe in liberty for all people, Arabs included. But just as the United States had to rise against its oppressors, I believe that the way to achieve truly lasting liberty is not for another nation to swoop in and “liberate” a people, but for the people themselves to rise up and liberate themselves. Just as children need to learn to stand on their own two feet, a people needs to learn to stand up against oppression in order to be truly liberated.
Much better argument. That question of a just war is still held to be prudential, not dogmatic but I see how the argument can go either way.
However I’ll use your point about the greater good of the outcome as justification. I believe the manifest evil of Saddam in comparison to the virtue of liberty for Iraqi Arabs is exactly that kind of justification. In fact I think it’s even Christian in the sense that the war is a great sacrifice America made for our neighbor, defined broadly. Sure it’s idealistic and may fail – especially if we leave too early.
If you are arguing for a lasting change then logically you should be arguing we should stay to see it through. Otherwise you increase the likelihood of a poor outcome by leaving. Given the facts on the ground as they are today. Now that the price has been paid and stability in Iraq is possible it’s even more irresponsible to leave.
Must we be deaf to those that suffer under tyranny? I am open to the argument that this case, say Darfur, or that case might be better causes. Or that we are limited in what we can do and should do. But its not as if this war was entered into suddenly or without debate. Now that we are so close to achieving a good end, you’d bail?
OK other points you raise. Your friends story is hard to evaluate, because I have no facts. Freezing assets without at least a hearing really is unconstitutional. It’s common place in drug laws, has been for years, but I have always thought it is effectively a punishment before a trial.
Warrantless foreign phone taps are borderline and get a pass only on the technicality that they are intercepted outside the US. As for the spirit of it I concede that your “rights” to phone terrorists have been abridged. If ordinary people are then prosecuted or suffer in some way unrelated to activities in support of terrorists I’d stand up with you. Haven’t seen any evidence of that – it simply doesn’t worry me.
“Just as children need to learn to stand on their own two feet, a people needs to learn to stand up against oppression in order to be truly liberated.”
So Arabs are like children? Did you mean to condescend there or was that a slip? Let me put it another way. We have inherited many blessings by being born in America and we have a opportunity to share some of those blessings with others through liberation. Maybe those folks in occupied France should have just thrown off their oppressors themselves?
Now you can argue that it won’t work or that we are going about it wrong or that the cost in lives is too high. All of those arguments I can respect, even if I don’t agree. I think the desire for liberty and the ability to sustain an open society is separate from the ability to throw off an oppressor. They are not necessarily related.
France helped us get started, do you think it was a mistake?
However I’ll use your point about the greater good of the outcome as justification. I believe the manifest evil of Saddam in comparison to the virtue of liberty for Iraqi Arabs is exactly that kind of justification. In fact I think it’s even Christian in the sense that the war is a great sacrifice America made for our neighbor, defined broadly. Sure it’s idealistic and may fail – especially if we leave too early.
Great point, Memphis!
Although it seems to escape people’s reason that if we do haphazardly leave, we will do so at the cost of not only their democracy but ours as well.
That is, to save the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam only to surrender it to the very terrorists that we’ve been all the while striving to protect ourselves from is insane!
There is no question that such an abrupt departure from Iraq would only result in serving the country on a silver platter to these terrorists.
Do you honestly believe that people hate America solely because of who we are and not at all because of what we’ve done?
These ones do.
Their Arabic communications are full of the duty to wage jihad. (As opposed to the foreign language ones, which are full of grievances you and I find intelligible.)
To amplify your point Mary, to the radical Islamist we are “apes and pigs” or subhuman infidels. The first step in justifying our murder is to deny our humanity. If we are less than human than killing us is not immoral. You have to have this kind of mindset to kill the innocent. Once we infidels are defined as subhuman and worthy of death, what we do doesn’t matter. To the man deluded into thinking killing westerners will bring him to Heaven as a martyr it’s quite irrelevant what those westerners do or say. We are already judged in their eyes.
So, the majority of Muslims believe this then?
Do a majority of Muslims hate us?
I’d rather think not, given that I have met sane Muslims. Are you saying that they do? I did ask the question first.
“In fact I think it’s even Christian in the sense that the war is a great sacrifice America made for our neighbor, defined broadly.”
Memphis, of course this logic is diametrically opposed to John Paul the Great as well as Pope Benedict’s comments on the war. I’ll stick with them.
I don’t think anyone really knows what percentage believes this, but there’s little doubt that the radicals that produce terrorists do. I suspect that there are many truly moderate Muslims, but they are likely too afraid to speak up (with good reason, they are not free to do so). However if the majority was moderate we should see some evidence of it, don’t you think? Is there such evidence? I’ve seen very little, maybe you can cite some.
Further, countries that export this hate like Saudi Arabia do not appear to be doing anything to reign in the radicals. One is left to assume they support it, given their diplomatic behavior (the Saudi ambassador won’t even shake the hand of his Israeli counterpart), their barbaric treatment of women (200 lashes to the victim of a gang rape. It was “only” 90 lashes until the news leaked to the west), and the over arching power given to religious law.
As for personal experience as a guide I don’t see how you can base much of anything on it. My experience with muslims varies quite a bit by country of origin and personality. I’ve had more comfortable interactions with Egyptians than Syrians. Also in my limited experience, I find non-Arab Muslims to be more accessible. However, the less devout the Muslim the less social friction. I used to work for a Palestinian Arab who was very affable and easy going – he also was not religious.
To be realistic, it would be absurd to extrapolate these few examples to the whole of any Muslim society. It’s not as if the folks I’ve met are likely to be typical of their cultures. I’ve met them in a secular Scientific/academic context. They are much more likely to be more open because they choose to come to the west to study. I suspect that Muslims in the west do not have much in common with the average Muslim.
All of which is a long winded way of saying we don’t really know for sure. We have some evidence that the majority of voting Palestinians are radical based on Hamas’ success (as if Fatah is moderate). Few Muslim countries have open elections that let us get a measure of things. And what elections there are are hardly fully open.
As a thought experiment, what might the influence of a relatively moderate Muslim majority look like? Shouldn’t some softening be evident? Or if not softening at least a reluctance to enter into the fight. To me, the oft heard euphemism “The Religion of Peace” is Orwellian.
I think the west is in deep denial over the whole Muslim question and we wish we could avoid or ignore the problem. So when I hear Ron Paul (to return to politics) say we should take our ball and go home (figuratively speaking) I read that as a failure to recognize and come to grips with one of the most important issues of our time. It’s not as if anyone wants to have to deal with terrorists, it’s rather that we must deal with them one way or another. A real leader anticipates problems and formulates reasonable strategies to solve them, or at least to deflect the worst consequences of them. I see very little of that in Ron Paul and even less of it in the democrats. Rather they appear to be playing to our natural desires to hide from harsh realities by selling the us the pleasing fantasy that the best approach to danger is to look away, and go back to sleep.
Memphis, but what about JPII and Benedict on the war? Don’t you think their words should be taken into account?
I did ask the question first.
I answered with my question. On account of your question being of the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type.
William,
I certainly can’t blame you there. The justification for a pre-emptive war on Iraq was always weak and very much opposed by the Vatican, no doubt about it. In fact even though the justification for the first Iraq war was much more reasonable, the Pope didn’t approve then either. The Vatican was much more reserved on the US-Afghan war.
As a matter of fact if the Pope made it a dogmatic requirement for Catholics to accept this view I’d have to give it up out of respect for his authority (and that’d be hard). As it is I do have an obligation to understand the reasoning, and I have come round to respecting the prudential argument about the conversion of hearts. However I do find the occasional Papal comment to be difficult to swallow. I try to remain as open as I can to a respectful hearing, but I’m not going to pretend that I agree with everything whole heartedly. I struggle with this one and with death penalty , although on the death penalty I’ve drifted somewhat.
I wonder when intervention is called for. Saddam was a cruel tyrant, Mugabe is a cruel tyrant and Jong Il Kim is a cruel tyrant. Surely removing a tyrant is a blessing. To do nothing is to let the innocent suffer and die. To act (through war) is to likewise to cause the death and suffering of the innocent, despite the best efforts to minimize such death. This is a case of bad choices. Most often we do nothing and our sins are of omission (I’m thinking of Rwanda) rather than commission (Iraq). It’s not so trivial to make a moral decision.
Sorry that’s “Kim Jong-il”
Memphis, One could certainly argue that more lives as been lost as a result of the Iraq war than might have been lost under Sadam.
One could certainly argue the opposite as well. It’s unknowable.
When is Jimmy going to have a meaningful post? By my count, it has been months …
“One could certainly argue the opposite as well. It’s unknowable.” Which is the best argument against the war.
OK William,
Let me, for the sake of argument concede , that going into Iraq was wrong. I can see good reasons to oppose it, but that ship has long ago sailed. Today’s question is: do we do more harm by staying then by leaving too early? I think you can disagree with the war and still see the wisdom of staying to stabilize the place. Think of Vietnam and the killing fields as examples of what can happen.
By the way National Review and Mike Novak have both endorsed Romney.
I’m sorry, I believe since you were the one with the assertion, Mary, you should be the one to back it up. If you can’t perhaps that shows the answer.
Jarnor,
You didn’t like my answer? Or do you only talk to Mary?
Jarnor, have you stopped beating your wife?
I post about an assertion about why people hate us. You treat this as a statement about “a majority of Muslims.” Until you answer MY question, your question is a shameless red herring because you are treating statements about one group as if they applied to another.
Romney is the quintessential hypocrite; in semi-private conversations he has been heard to say he would not appoint any Muslims to the US cabinet because “…based on the numbers of American Muslims in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified.” The irony here is that according to US statistics, Mormons make up 2% of the population…and so do Muslims. So, under his logic, Mormons should not serve in the cabinet either. Personally, I think it would be in the best interest if both cults were equally “under-represented” here and abroad.
I think deusdonat is being unfair. If a candidate is asked if he would appoint a Croatian-American to a cabinet position, he might reasonably infer that he was being asked whether he would appoint a Croatian-American because he is a Croatian-American. In all likelihood Romney was responding to this type of question, which is predicated on the value of diversity which is now a well-entrenched norm in America. He is not asking us to elect him because he is a Mormon.
Referring to religions with which we disagree as cults is infantile. A cult has sociological characteristics, most especially undue pressure to not leave. Lots of perfectly well-adjusted Moprmons out there, and lots of perfectly well-adjusted ex-Mormons too. Same goes for Muslims. The kind of bigotry represented by deusdonat’s post should be embarrassing to the visitors of this blog as well as its host.
Semi-private? What does that mean? In my view more damning than the alleged double standard is the common but morally bankrupt notion that cabinet posts belong to ethnic groups based on population. Whatever happened to merit and the best person for the job? I’d still vote for Romney, not with great enthusiasm, but without regret. I read him as a gentlemen unlike Huckabee who I read as a opportunist nanny state.
By the way William – the Houston Chronicle is reporting today that Paul did say he wanted to eliminate the CIA (I disagree on that one) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (I’m sympathetic to this one – but I doubt it’s feasibility). Nothing about the FBI in this article. He also supports the gold standard ( very retro and a total fantasy, not to mention a liquidity nightmare). Some of the other stuff is more or less inflammatory depending on your point of view. Interestingly he’s been on both sides of the immigration issue. Most of these comments support my contention that he’s on the fringe and your quotes imply that he’s been softening/backpedaling to appear less radical.
The key features of a cult are bizarre beliefs (this is very subjective), secrecy, small scale, the seclusion and isolation of members, including the distancing from family members and past associates as well as a invasive control over personal lives. Often those that oppose or try to leave the cult are harassed in some manner. Scientology has most of the features of a cult while I’d say Mormons have only two, bizarre beliefs and some degree of secrecy. By these measures Christianity would have been (and was in fact) considered a cult by some. In modern times, the negative connotation of cults come from the most serious cult feature is the last one: harassment of those that would leave it and by that criterion Muslims qualify in spades.
By the way Mike I don’t read any bigotry in deusdonats comments and that charge: bigotry is thrown around pretty easily these days, too easily in my view. Recall that religion among adults in a free country is a matter of personal choice, not race. I’m glad I still live in free country where I can criticize some else’s choices without fear. I shouldn’t be called a bigot because I think little of Mormonism or Islam. I think little of Democrat positions as well.
Memphis, Yeah, and I agree with Paul on those issues. What’s your point, that you find them “radical”? I find support of the war under the present circumstances “radical”. I find the “vote for Rudy and you’re electing Clinton” sentiment odd considering that Paul is the only viable candidate who wants quick withdrawal from Iraq. BTW, why not document that Paul has “been on both sides of the immigration issue.”? It’s simply not true.
Memphis, “leaving (Iraq) early”, turning it all over to the Iraqis is exactly what I want to do! Why on earth shouldn’t the Iraqis take some responsibility???
Memphis,
I agree that folks throw the bigot word out all too easily, but there is a line and deus crossed it. I certainly would take exception to the following statment in the context of the candidacy of a faithful Catholic:
“Personally, I think it would be in the best interest if Catholics were more “under-represented” here and abroad.”
It is hard to read that as being anything other than simple-minded anti-Catholic animus.
William
I was quoting the Houston Chronicle about immigration. As for leaving Iraq early, your comment says a lot about your interest in your fellow man. Also the Iraqis have been steadily taking on more responsibility, by the way.
I said nothing about Rudy, I doubt if I could support Rudy unless the alternative was even worse.
However the most absurd comment is the viability of Paul. We can disagree forever (and probably will) on his positions. However the idea that Paul is viable is laughable. Are you serious? By what measure – your survey of friends? Paul is unlikely to finish in the top 3 in any primary. He’s never won a statewide office (and I doubt he could). He trails in pretty much every poll. No matter how much you might like him his viability is non existent.
Mike,
I have to agree that the I think the anti-Mormon sentiment is overblown. I doubt their heresies are that much worse than other ones, in fact they may be less dangerous because they are so out there. Mormons don’t scare me. What duesdonat has done is point out, rightly in my view, the fallacy of Romney’s use of proportionality as a rationale for the Cabinet. It’s an excuse, and one that can be just as readily turned on him.
As for your point that deusdonat paints all mormons and muslims with a broad brush. I see what you mean and you do have a point.
Fair enough, Memphis, but I still think Romney’s quote is being misunderstood. Romney is not asking to be elected because he is a Mormon. The question posed to him was essentially whether a Muslim should be appointed to the cabinet because he is a Muslim, which is a question that goes to the value of diversity. Romney’s response can be criticized for carrying an implied agreement with our disordered obsession with diversity, but it cannot fairly be characterized as hypocricy.
Memphis, “As for leaving Iraq early, your comment says a lot about your interest in your fellow man.” Exactly! My interest in my fellow man is exactly why I want us to leave Iraq ASAP!
Mike,
You’re right “a disordered obsession with diversity” is a much more accurate than hypocrisy.
Your other point is also good. Romney is not a pastor (unlike Huckabee) so he shouldn’t be expected to be as wedded to theological doctrine as someone who studied the subject formally. It’s not like I can’t find fault with other Christians. The real question is the measure of the man. Religion is one factor among many. To me personal conduct trumps any verbal stance. I find it ironic that the only man in the first tier of the GOP to be married only once is the Mormon.
William
Care to refute the question of Paul’s viability?
Check that – I’m not sure about Huckabee – maybe he has been married only once. I’ll have to check
Referring to religions with which we disagree as cults is infantile.
So it’s okay to refer to a cult as a cult as long as we agree with the cult?
A cult has sociological characteristics, most especially undue pressure to not leave.
Yeah, sounds like Islam might qualify based on your definitiion of the term “cult,” since leaving Islam is punishable by death.
As for whether or not it is appropriate to refer to the Mormon religion as a cult, look at the way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded, look at its sociology back then and as it developed. Mormonism historically does qualify as a “cult” (meaning a heterodox new religion founded by a charismatic leader and exhibiting a decisive theological break with prior religions or sects), and the fact that it is now much larger than it was when Joseph Smith invented Mormonism only means it is a very large and successful cult.
Lots of perfectly well-adjusted Mormons out there, and lots of perfectly well-adjusted ex-Mormons too.
The classification of a religion as a “cult” is not determined by how well-adjusted current or former members of a new religion are.
The kind of bigotry represented by deusdonat’s post should be embarrassing to the visitors of this blog as well as its host.
The “bigotry” exists only in your perspective. Desiring that aberrant religions (or religions one deems aberrant) not attain political power over others is not “bigotry.” Or can you honest say that you wouldn’t be troubled if our culture and our state and federal governments were dominated by Muslims or Mormons, and that you wouldn’t cast your vote in a way to prevent such a development? If you would be troubled and if you would so vote (and you’d be most imprudent not to), then by your own words you must accuse yourself of bigotry.
“The kind of bigotry represented by deusdonat’s post should be embarrassing to the visitors of this blog as well as its host.”
Post-Modernism at its best!.
Jordan,
I think the conflation all Mormons or all Muslims with a given political position is lazy categorical thinking, but not bigotry (that implies hatred which I do not believe was expressed). I’d be happy to support an authentically moderate Muslim whose political positions aligned with mine (assuming one exists). Likewise Harry Reid is nominally Mormon, so it’s not as if being Mormon is necessarily a good indicator of political positions.
Of course you’re other point Jordan is very true. When I vote I expressly intend to prevent the 50% of the population who are Democrats from being represented in the executive branch.
Memphis, unless you have the gift of prophecy, I doubt you can refute my comment that Paul is viable. In any case, Jimmy Carter was not really viable at this point. The polls mean nothing when it comes to Paul. Number one, most of the polls are directed at those who voted in Republican primaries 4 years ago. Secondly, almost all the polls use land phones. Both of these facts discount these polls because of the young age of Paul’s supporters. Even so, Zogby has said that he will surprise “some front runners in New Hampshire”. By this weekend Paul will have raised more money from more people than any other Republican candidate this quarter. The fighting between Guiliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee with a very divided and I might add very soft support simply opens the door for Dr. Ron Paul. BTW, Paul leads Thompson and is tied with McCain in some of these land phone polls.
In any case, as a Catholic, I vote out of conviction, not according to who the press tells us is “viable”.
My grammar stinks: that should read “your other point …”
I think the conflation all Mormons or all Muslims with a given political position is lazy categorical thinking, but not bigotry (that implies hatred which I do not believe was expressed). I’d be happy to support an authentically moderate Muslim whose political positions aligned with mine (assuming one exists). Likewise Harry Reid is nominally Mormon, so it’s not as if being Mormon is necessarily a good indicator of political positions.
I agree — there is quite a diversity of political opinion among Mormons and Muslims, and in this country Muslims (for example) usually wouldn’t be able to get away with killing a former Muslim even if they wanted to — and thankfully most American Muslims have more moderate views, I think. But if they were a majority and if they had real political power, I doubt that would be the case — then we’d have to worry about Sharia law and “Dhimmitude.”
Jimmy Carter was a Governor, Paul is a Congressman. Has a Congressman ever won the presidency? Certainly not in the last 100 years. Also didn’t Carter do well in the early primaries? Also Paul has already lost statewide races in Texas where he’s well known. I’ll grant that it is not impossible, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
I suppose even Dennis Kucinich could, in theory, win (if someone added enough LSD to the water supply).
Jordan,
I think you’re right to be worried about Muslims looking to Europe. The pattern seems to be that lack of assimilation and insulation by theoretically moderate Muslims protect the radical core from detection. Still there are a few brave souls who speak out, but most are former Muslims.
William,
I think the popularity of Paul is from two factors: the unpopular war/war fatigue and the general weakness of the GOP field. I expect Paul may knockout some of the bigger names out of the race and thereby be a factor. Currently there are too many so so candidates. Once the field becomes smaller, preferable two names, Paul’s significance should drop off.
Of course a fringe candidate can make a big difference by draining the soft support away from one party or the other. Ross Perot mattered in 1992 and Ralph Nader mattered in Florida ’00 to give two examples. In a parliamentary system voting for the fringe makes more sense because your party may get propotional seats. In the US winner takes all system a vote for the more pure less viable candidate can cause the opposite party to win (as in my two examples). But you’re right to point out this is a matter of conscience – I can respect that.
That doesn’t mean much. Heck, even Bill Clinton has only been married once. The question is, which of the candidates actually seem like they’re KEEPING their marriage vows?
Good point JoAnna
Mormons are not polythiests! They are Christians and why is the faith of Romney challenged, a family man who belives in Jesus, while you have Fred Thompson who hasn’t been to church in years and Juliany who had multiple afairs?
We are viting a commandor in chief, not a pastor in chief.
“Sure, if Ron Paul becomes electable, I’d be happy to consider him. That’s exactly what I did for Huckabee. If I was fortunate enough to live in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, I’d probably approach the question differently, since I’d have a significantly greater voice in *determining* who was electable.”
The answer to your bad logic:
“Ron Paul only can’t get elected if enough people don’t vote for him because they think “he can’t be elected”. If he is a non-felon citizen over 35 years of age, he can be elected. Self-fulfilling prophecies of despair are unhelpful in the extreme.”
“A word on libertarians and Ron Paul. While I’m sympathetic to the idea of eliminating many of the excesses of government but the FBI is not an excess. Sure they have been poorly run and misused but they are necessary. They run the stings that find corrupt mayors and state legislators, they put bank robbers in prison, they put mob bosses in prison. What is government for if not for protecting us against criminals? Be real.”
There are other solutions to the FBI than how it is currently run. “Abolishing the FBI” means abolishing it in its current form. Ron Paul would not get rid of necessary functions, he would just do it in a more efficient manner, and get rid of the excess.
“Another mark of childishness is the idea of bailing on foreign bases and hiding our heads in the sand. This is a dangerous world where threats or either addressed abroad or at home – not dealing with them at all is not a real option for adults. Isolationism is the choice of the naive.”
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. We do NOT need most of our bases around the world. We should instead work with the countries’ militaries where those bases are located if a big enough issue comes up where we need to have troops there. We should not be the ones protecting those countries. We need to leave and have them build up armies of their own to protect themselves.
“Eliminating the CIA is also exceptionally naive and hints at paranoia. How do we assess the threats against us without it? Eliminating NATO and foreign bases is to turn our back on a our treaties and our promises to Europe. How very honorable.”
The functions of “assessing the threats against us” (information gathering) would not go away under Ron Paul. The functions of “meddling in the affairs of other countries” would. If we don’t meddle in the affairs of other countries by installing our own pre-picked leaders there, we don’t create new enemies.
“In short the support of Ron Paul is the mark of adolescence. Grow up and pick a real candidate.”
You grow up and realize that the non-aggression principle is the procedure to follow, such that the world doesn’t hate us like they do now. And, lo and behold, the non-aggression principle is even compatible with Christianity!
“I don’t think Woods is a “conspiracy-theory nutjob,” but knowing Woods’ stances on a lot of things, with which I disagree, I’m not surprised he’d be a Paul supporter. Quite a lot of conspiracy-theory nutjobs do support Paul, though, which ought to tell you something.”
Sorry, but please try again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Good post, Jimmy!!
*************************
“The fact that Mormons consider themselves Christians while Catholics do not regard Mormons as Christians (and rightly so for our purposes) is a downright silly reason to not vote for a Mormon for president.”
It’s not a silly reason at all. The fact is, that Mormons are not a Christian religion. (I dare say that there may be a few scattered Christians among them–given the number of conversions, there almost have to be). But the LDS is not Christian.Quite apart from anything else, they don’t have a valid form of baptism.
And they most certainly *are* polytheists. They claim not to be, but their founder, & even more so, Brigham Young, gave them “permission from on high” to lie to “Gentiles”. (That’s all the rest of us. Including, bizarrely enough, Jews….).
Mormons can be lovely people; their missionaries have dug me out when I was snowed in. But don’t kid yourselves: they have ulterior motives….
It is one of the principal tenets of the LDS that scares me: They believe that their prophet [so-called] has a direct hotline to God, and they also believe that disobeying him–in *anything*–is tantamount to spiritual suicide. (Which equals mind control in my book, even laying aside their other cultish beliefs & behaviours).
It’s that anything that gets me. Which is why I will not be voting for Romney, nor any other Mormon. Say what you want about the “deism” of some of the Founding Fathers, but the deity they believed in was the same one we worship. Not a newly arrived “latter-day saint” who has just earned his wings, by whatever means the LDS prophet proclaims is necessary this week.
Nice people. Good with their families. And, not to be trusted, not to lie, cheat, and steal–whatever “godhood” is going for these days……
What’s the difference between isolationist and non-interventionist if the effect is the same: to sit on your hands? Would a nonintervenists have opposed Hitler? What about Rwanda? We didn’t intervene there: do you think that letting those people die was a Christian action? What about those that suffer in Darfur? You have to be mighty sure of yourself to be confident that not intervening as policy is always just.
Further you completely ignore the results of abandoning our allies.
Take Taiwan for example. If we left abruptly and declared a nonintervention policy they’d be open to attack from China. The Philippines and Japan are also vulnerable. Our bases and our presence helps keep our powers from considering conquest and probably have prevented war. Another example is Korea. Without us South Korea would be swallowed up by North Korea and the Chinese. It’s our presence, and the Chinese belief that we would fight, that keeps the peace.
I might respect the position if Paul delineated which bases we should close and why, but a blanket close ’em all attitude is not what I would call thoughtful. Same is true for all these shut em down proposals. Sure, who actually likes the IRS? But just getting rid of the IRS is the easy popular half of the equation. The IRS exists for a reason” to fund the government. What would you replace it with, by what mechanism would the government be funded?
The simplicity of the answers are childish and evidence of the lack of concern for the consequences of base closures or the elimination of the basic government agencies is simplistic.
Look I’m actually quite sympathetic to some libertarian concepts and would like to see the elimination of the REA, PBS, NPR, and the National Endowment for the Arts. I’d like to see the EPA, OSHA, the FDA and other agencies drastically reduced in scope and power, but the CIA or the FBI? (Assuming he did say he wanted to eliminate the FBI: there’s reason to doubt this). They certainly have had egregious failures, and need reform, but the fundamental functions they perform require they be preserved. I would respect Paul if the talk was about reform, but words have meaning, even for libertarians, and “abolish” means to eliminate.
His choice of agencies to attack makes me question his judgment.
His comments don’t show caution, prudence, or even the basic understanding of the consequences of his actions. Let’s take the gold standard as an example. This example is clearly a Paul proposal, and his call to eliminate the Federal reserve shows he’s still radical. Do you have any idea how deflationary that concept is and how it would distort the entire financial world? For someone who proposes a hands off policy in other realms this concept is very strange. It would very likely precipitate a depression as liquidity would evaporate so would job creation and economic expansion. Paul is like a lot of idealists. He’s wedded to his ideals and is unwilling to examine the consequences of his proposals.
How easy it is to say I’d eliminate all those bad departments no one really likes without taking about alternatives that address the real problems those agencies are designed to solve. It’s a “let’s eat only cookies and ice cream but none of the nasty vegetables” kind of approach and that’s why I think he’s childish.
“I don’t think Woods is a “conspiracy-theory nutjob,” but knowing Woods’ stances on a lot of things, with which I disagree, I’m not surprised he’d be a Paul supporter. Quite a lot of conspiracy-theory nutjobs do support Paul, though, which ought to tell you something.”
Sorry, but please try again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Ah, so we’re not supposed to notice that Paul is a fringe candidate with views way out of the mainstream, and who has consequently attracted the support (probably undesired) of kook nutjobs? There’s no correlation between Paul’s “out there” statements and proposals and the fact that others whose views are “out there” like him?
Sorry, but please try again, as your comment has absolutely nothing to do with mine.
Although the title on is, in my opinion, false or at least misleading, Alan Keyes made a great point about how the nation has taken God out of education and out of the foundation of our country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-vQCE8mnpE
I’m glad he brought up the point of the other candidates bickering about personal religion when the national creed is being threatened. Sounds a lot like G. K. Chesterton:
– “America is the only country ever founded on a creed.” – What I Saw In America, 1922
– “The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” – Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922
– “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.” – Christendom in Dublin, 1933
Memphis Aggie, you mentioned earlier (much, much earlier) in this thread that you don’t like Huckabee’s ‘overt religiosity’ and seemed to doubt his sincerity. Did you know that before entering politics, he was a Baptist minister and president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention? I think his overt religiosity is real and am glad to see it.
I don’t doubt his sincerity. I’m sure he sincerely believes he’s better than the rest of us.
JMH,
I doubt Huckabees humility and considering his nanny state tendencies I think I have cause. Being a Baptist is not, in my book, evidence for humility.
I never said being Baptist was credential for being humble, nor for being sincere. It’s just his role as pastor that, for me, proves his sincerity in his faith and that it is not some ‘gimmic’ for the camera. Also, it seems rather uncharitable for you to suggest that Huckabee thinks he is ‘better than the rest of us’. Are you saying – well, what ARE you trying to imply here?
Oh, I checked for you, according to Wikipedia (the paragon of all truth) Huckabee has married and remains married to one woman. He instituted the covenant marriage in Arkansas and he and his wife renewed their vows under the covenant marriage law. (Covenant marriage is, of course, optional for those seeking marriage)
JMH,
I’m reacting to written quotes from people I respect and what I read about specific issues. Politicians have been known to use their religion to their advantage in the past. I think Huckabee has used his religion to club Romney and I’m offended by it. Huckabee even apologized for it. Sure I think Mormonism is odd and heretical, but I also think that of Baptists. I’m willing to give them all a pass on theology because Washington is Caesar’s turf not Christ’s. The presidency is a worldly office. Further I think anyone who seeks the presidency is inherantly suspect on the question of humility. Mike Huckabee appears, let’s be charitable here and say “appears”, to have given up spiritual pursuits for worldly ones. If he’s such a stellar Christian why leave the pulpit to pursue worldly glory?
Nice to know he’s been married to the same women, that counts for something. Just to put it into perspective I’d vote for him against any dem, but that’s really a low standard.
So, it seems to me that you are saying no Christian should enter politics because that would be moving from spiritual pursuits to worldly ones.
I don’t buy that. We each have our own gifts. Perhaps Huckabee only wants to stop the downward spiral that is America. If we only let the godless liberals have political power, just where do you expect America to end up?
I do agree somewhat, however, with your assessment that politics is not for the humble. But then, that is a black mark against ALL of the candidates, not just Huckabee.
It is a black mark against them all – you’re right. It’s the use of religion as a selling point, rather than a personal guide, that I object to. I want a Cristian in office, but I much prefer the “I’m a sinner in need of mercy” approach of W than the “I’m a better Christian than you Mormon heretics” that is implied here.
JMH,
Let me be real specific about my distrust of Huckabee: three things higher taxes, the veto of public drinking in entertainment zones, and the BMI (body mass index) requirements for children in school. The third proposal offends my libertarian instincts (yes I have a few). The weight of the child is the concern of the parents. Anybody who sticks his nose into others business on one issue is reasonably likely to do it again. I want less intrusive government, is that clear enough? So I was predisposed against him before I heard about the religious issue. It also helps explain why I see him as arrogant. I find his BMI proposal to be another elitist top down mandate. Huckabee lost weight and now wants to force everyone else to. He’s like the ex-smoker who won’t get off your back once he’s quit. I used to smoke so I understand the impulse, but I don’t want to see that attitude in my president.
So add to that these jibes on Romney whose trying desperately to stay above the fray. If Huckabee followed suit and took the high road here he’d probably still have benefited from the distrust of Mormonism without ever getting his hands dirty. It would’ve have been the presidential thing to do.
…much prefer the “I’m a sinner in need of mercy” approach of W
AMEN! He may come across as an idiot, but at least there is that virtue in him!
The third proposal offends my libertarian instincts (yes I have a few). The weight of the child is the concern of the parents. Anybody who sticks his nose into others business on one issue is reasonably likely to do it again.
Fourth proposal: All kids must be barcoded!
Esau,
You are such a fu cking pri ck.
Memphis Aggie,
Could you point me to some of the statements made by Huckabee concerning religion/Mormonism that bother you? I honestly am not aware of any statements by Huckabee that are troublesome (I don’t follow the political world that closely), or else I have heard them but see them in a different light. It would help me to understand your mistrust of Huckabee.
Whoah I did not post that last one!!! Someone used my name!!
jmh,
I was specifically referring to the NY Times article where Huckabee tossed off an comment about Mormon beliefs. NRO tracks this stuff in more detail than I care to follow.
About the other thing – someone spoofing my name – I think I’ll email Jimmy. Anyone else have suggestions?
I’m out of here ’til Monday morning at the earliest.
Don’t buy into anything posted in my name ’til then.
I hate myself.
just pulling your leg, Memphis Aggie 🙂
David B.
I agree that the constitution does not legally prohibit a citizen from considering candidate’s religion in determining which candidate will win his vote. We can’t control that. But, is it just?
Is America morally limited to electing only Christians to higher office? Are Jews okay? Hindus? Muslims? If the practice of the faith in the pluralist society does not run counter to American interests, security and widely held values/culture, I see no reason why a man or woman’s faith should prevent him/her from becoming president. That said, Islam does pose problems for American security and culture. Good American citizenship seems to be a prominent part of Mormon daily life. [I have known a number of Mormons over the years.]
Some one mentioned the Masons. George Washington, our first president was a Mason. In Alex, VA, you’ll find a monument to Washington erected by the Masons, touting the organization and Washington’s role in it. Many of our founders were not active Christians, but were deists. No one was too concerned about their specific theological beliefs.
I agree that the constitution does not legally prohibit a citizen from considering candidate’s religion in determining which candidate will win his vote. We can’t control that. But, is it just?
Is America morally limited to electing only Christians to higher office? Are Jews okay? Hindus? Muslims? If the practice of the faith in the pluralist society does not run counter to American interests, security and widely held values/culture, I see no reason why a man or woman’s faith should prevent him/her from becoming president. That said, Islam does pose problems for American security and culture. Good American citizenship seems to be a prominent part of Mormon daily life. [I have known a number of Mormons over the years.]
Some one mentioned the Masons. George Washington, our first president was a Mason. In Alex, VA, you’ll find a monument to Washington erected by the Masons, touting the organization and Washington’s role in it. Many of our founders were not active Christians, but were deists. No one was too concerned about their specific theological beliefs.
“Ah, so we’re not supposed to notice that Paul is a fringe candidate with views way out of the mainstream, and who has consequently attracted the support (probably undesired) of kook nutjobs? There’s no correlation between Paul’s “out there” statements and proposals and the fact that others whose views are “out there” like him?”
Huckabee has fundamentalist lunatics who support him, too. All the candidates have kooks who support them. It says nothing about the candidates’ policies themselves. Period. Nothing. Certain policies might be beneficial to certain individuals who you don’t agree with, but that doesn’t mean that the policy itself is a bad one. You might like it to be the case that all the candidates, except for yours, that is, have individuals who you think are questionable as supporters, but you would be wrong. What you are trying to do is characterize all Ron Paul supporters as kooks and his polices as just supporting them, which is completely false.
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter whom or what is “in the mainstream”. If you let the mainstream run your life, you sure wouldn’t be living your life as good Catholic, right? There are a lot of things that are in the mainstream that are inefficient or wrongly done. All that matters are what are the best solutions to the problems of America. What matters is which candidate has the best plan for dealing with the issues of America. Sadly, most Americans look at the presidential “race” as being something like a horse race. It is as if people are going to get some kind of prize for picking the guy who’s currently winning in the polls, and until other people take a look at a candidate, they won’t look into that candidate themselves. What follower mentality THAT is.
How about investigating what YOU believe would solve the problems of America and then vote for the guy who you most agree with, and quit trying to support whomever everyone else is supporting, or thinking that because other people support someone that that is what legitimizes that candidate for you.
This isn’t a horse race, and you won’t win the lottery by picking the guy who will win. This is real life people!
I agree that the constitution does not legally prohibit a citizen from considering candidate’s religion in determining which candidate will win his vote. We can’t control that. But, is it just?
Absolutely, your religious views inform your conscience which guides your actions. I would include not only the particular religion, but your views about how it ought to guide your actions. If your religion teaches things which are contrary to public interest they are important factors to consider. Also, your claims about your faith speak to integrity as well. With regard to Mormonism, it is most certainly not Christian as defined by the Catholic Church, nor is it considered so by most of our separated brethren.
Romney:
. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. “
Romney claims to be Christian and believes Christ is the Son of God, using fundamentally different definitions of “Christian” and “Son of God” than his audience is disingenuous. This is a queston of character.
Part of the problem with mormonism is that it changes doctrine frequently, and demands obedience on ALL matters. Currently mormonism condemns abortion out of convenience, but is ultimately pro-choice. Someday the “prophet” may get a call from God to change this one way or the other.
Is America morally limited to electing only Christians to higher office? Are Jews okay? Hindus? Muslims? If the practice of the faith in the pluralist society does not run counter to American interests, security and widely held values/culture, I see no reason why a man or woman’s faith should prevent him/her from becoming president.
It shouldn’t and it doesn’t. The constitution is clear on this. The constitution does not bind individual voters on electing someone whe they believe best represents their interests, which may, and ought to include religious factors.
While some of the founding fathers may have been more deist than Christian, they were most certainly monotheistic, and subscribed to the Christian faith in all of it’s moral doctrines if not all of it’s theology. They also recognized the importance of the Christian faith to the United States.
God Bless,
Matt
Sorry, I haven’t been around to join the pointless bickering, I may have missed some points.
No offense, Mary, but when I call you out for a blanket statement about Muslims hating us, and you try to back yourself up with that “have you stopped beating your wife” nonsense, it doesn’t speak well of your opinion. Even those who aren’t thinking so clearly on another blog post here can think well enough to answer “I have never beaten my wife.”
A statement can be answered correctly. If you need to nuance your statement about Muslims, please do, because by default your statement sure sounds like “Muslims hate all Christians” – I asked for a clarification, can you give it?
Sorry, I haven’t been around to join the pointless bickering, I may have missed some points.
No offense, Mary, but when I call you out for a blanket statement about Muslims hating us, and you try to back yourself up with that “have you stopped beating your wife” nonsense, it doesn’t speak well of your opinion. Even those who aren’t thinking so clearly on another blog post here can think well enough to answer “I have never beaten my wife.”
A statement can be answered correctly. If you need to nuance your statement about Muslims, please do, because by default your statement sure sounds like “Muslims hate all Christians” – I asked for a clarification, can you give it?
Huckabee has fundamentalist lunatics who support him, too. All the candidates have kooks who support them.
I’d wager the proportion of kooks to non-kooks supporting Paul is greater than the proportion supporting most of the other candidates.
It says nothing about the candidates’ policies themselves.
I never said nor implied that it did. Rather, I observed that Paul has himself espoused oddball, unworkable, and erroneous policy positions, which thus attracts people who tend toward oddball, unworkable, and erroneous policy positions. He is a Libertarian temporarily donning Republican feathers, after all.
You might like it to be the case that all the candidates, except for yours, that is, have individuals who you think are questionable as supporters, but you would be wrong.
If by “you” you mean “me,” then please be advised that none of the candidates running this time around are “mine.” I’ll probably end up voting for one of them, I suppose. Anyway I’m not concerned that Paul has so many kooks in his voting base. I merely observed that its unsurprising he does, given his own fringe status and unelectability.
What you are trying to do is characterize all Ron Paul supporters as kooks and his polices as just supporting them, which is completely false.
What is completely false is your allegation that I am trying to characterise all Ron Paul supporters as kooks. I’ve never said or implied nor even thought such a thing. Please stop trying to read minds — if you’re not sure what I mean, don’t invent an intention or motive — just ask.
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter whom or what is “in the mainstream”.
It does if you want to talk about who is likely to win the election. Paul hasn’t got a snowball’s chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the general election.
Jarnor 23 said: No offense, Mary, but when I call you out for a blanket statement about Muslims hating us, and you try to back yourself up with that “have you stopped beating your wife” nonsense, it doesn’t speak well of your opinion. Even those who aren’t thinking so clearly on another blog post here can think well enough to answer “I have never beaten my wife.”
A statement can be answered correctly. If you need to nuance your statement about Muslims, please do, because by default your statement sure sounds like “Muslims hate all Christians” – I asked for a clarification, can you give it?
Give it a rest, Jarnor. It was blazingly obvious that Mary was talking only about radical Islamists who preach the duty of violent, bloddy jihad against the West (against all non-Muslims, in fact). Nothing she said could be construed to mean, or to imply, that Muslims in general hate us. She specifically said, “These ones do,” not, “All Muslims do.”
By the way, the response, “I have never beaten my wife,” doesn’t work, because if someone asks you, “Have you STOPPED beating your wife,” and you give that response, then he would say, “I didn’t ask that. I asked if you’ve stopped. Why are you dodging the question? Seems like you’ve got a guilty conscience!”
I will not, sir, because it is NOT clear to me it wasn’t slander against all members of another religion, nor has she said it is not.
So, in short, since you cannot answer for her, do not presume to.
Mary, I’m still waiting, and I hope indeed it is something like this busybody says.
All this thread has convinced me of is to not vote for a faithful Presbyterian. Calvinists don’t believe in free will. Electing a president who thinks everything has been predestined would be reckless, no?
I will not, sir, because it is NOT clear to me it wasn’t slander against all members of another religion, nor has she said it is not.
So, in short, since you cannot answer for her, do not presume to.
Mary, I’m still waiting, and I hope indeed it is something like this busybody says.
Jarnor, my mouse gives me the ability to scroll back up the screen so I can read previous comments. To find out why you thought Mary’s reference to radical Islamists might be a reference to all Muslims, I scrolled back up the screen to see if there was something I’d missed. I didn’t find anything, but again I could have missed something. If there is some comment Mary made that would suggest she was referring to all Muslims, please point it out. As it is, there’s nothing I’m aware of that could be construed in the manner you suggest, which would explain Mary taking offense with you for suggesting she was slandering all Muslims.
No offense, Mary, but when I call you out for a blanket statement about Muslims hating us
Jarnor,
Now that is REALLY UNFAIR!
Plus, it would first help if you actually knew something about Islam prior to making remarks as to what they actually believe or not.
I agree wit Esau. Mary made no such blanket statement. Jarnor, you really are behaving badly here.
In response to Matt Dec 15, 9am (roughly). Sure, we voters are free to reject a candidate if we don’t like his faith, though I think it’s generally petty, unless a candidate’s faith poses some (clear) threat to our society, security or economy and such. I think many folks might understandably put Islam in that category at this time (though I don’t want to get into the argument raging by others in these comboxes; ie, not all Muslims are out to destroy America etc).
While I don’t take issue with Jimmy’s assessment of Mormonism (I am a fellow Catholic), I do not understand what about Mormonism will destroy US culture, society, economy or threaten our national security. Sure, one can take issue with Romney’s recent support of abortion or immigration controls, or perhaps his weakness in the face of the Mass Supreme Court implementing gay marriage. Yet, I fail to see where his theology poses risks to our nation. Yes, it’s quite different and flawed. Rod Dreher comes out in print and says it’s not Christianity, though Mormons follow Christ. How does the Mormon way of following Christ harm the USA if the president were of that faith? I think we have seen the limits of a president’s power when the GOP had both the White House and Congress and got little done.
In response to Matt Dec 15, 9am (roughly). Sure, we voters are free to reject a candidate if we don’t like his faith, though I think it’s generally petty, unless a candidate’s faith poses some (clear) threat to our society, security or economy and such. I think many folks might understandably put Islam in that category at this time (though I don’t want to get into the argument raging by others in these comboxes; ie, not all Muslims are out to destroy America etc).
While I don’t take issue with Jimmy’s assessment of Mormonism (I am a fellow Catholic), I do not understand what about Mormonism will destroy US culture, society, economy or threaten our national security. Sure, one can take issue with Romney’s recent support of abortion or immigration controls, or perhaps his weakness in the face of the Mass Supreme Court implementing gay marriage. Yet, I fail to see where his theology poses risks to our nation. Yes, it’s quite different and flawed. Rod Dreher comes out in print and says it’s not Christianity, though Mormons follow Christ. How does the Mormon way of following Christ harm the USA if the president were of that faith? I think we have seen the limits of a president’s power when the GOP had both the White House and Congress and got little done.
It is not an unreasonable prejudice for people who care about true religion to take their concern about Mormonism into account in considering the candidacy of Mr. Romney. The question is not whether, as president, Mr. Romney would take orders from Salt Lake City. I doubt whether many people think he would. The questions are: Would a Mormon as president of the United States give greater credibility and prestige to Mormonism? The answer is almost certainly yes. Would it therefore help advance the missionary goals of what many view as a false religion? The answer is almost certainly yes. Is it legitimate for those Americans to take these questions into account in voting for a presidential nominee or candidate? The answer is certainly yes.
It’s certainly legitimate to consider religion. Separation of Church and State is a restriction on the State not the voter. Most of the time however it is petty, especially if it’s Protestant 1 vs Protestant 2. But as the religion become more distant the question becomes more relevant. Mormonism is pretty far out there theologically, but not too far culturally, in my view. Obviously when the line is crossed where you’d say “I just wouldn’t vote for a …” is a personal decision, but there’s no doubt some line should be laid down. I, for instance, would never vote for a Moonie or a Scientologist. For me that line is somewhere between Mormons and Tom Cruise, but I certainly wouldn’t blame someone for drawing that line a little closer to home.
Yes, American voters are entitled to their own criteria for judgment. I have qualified that unless a person’s religious beliefs are so contrary or harmful to American culture, economy, and/or national security, I don’t see it as a valid issue in an election. I wouldn’t vote for a Moonie or Scientologist either.
Also, I didn’t notice that Roman Catholicism rose in prominence as a sole result of JFK’s presidency. Sure, we became more accepted, but we compromised ourselves to achieve that end. [Actually, ultimate RC beliefs have not changed, but we the people did.] Maybe an alternative theory is that a Mormon president might cause some change in Mormon belief in order to attain greater acceptance in the US. Mormons gave up a set of unique beliefs, morally unacceptable to the rest of America, just to join the Union. Maybe Mitt doesn’t really believe some of the detail of his faith, though he certainly has not disavowed his faith. I’d rather have a doubting Mormon than a dissenting, unfaithful, thrice married Catholic.
If we’re worried about a rise in the missionary zeal of Mormons, in the event of a Mormon US president, perhaps we ought to study that new CDF document on evangelism.
Great article Jimmy.
I heard on the local news in San Antonio Texas today that Mike Huckabee will be in town this weekend to speak at well known anti-Catholic John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church. The Catholic League published an article titled JOHN HAGEE: VETERAN BIGOT last June that was long overdue. Perhaps Mr. Huckabee doesn’t realize that Mr. Hagee is blatantly anti-Catholic and clearly distorts historical truths about Christianity and the Church. But even though, I’m not impressed.
Even worse than Pastor Hagee’s anti-Catholicism is his apostasy from the Christian faith. In his latest book, “In Defense of Israel,” Hagee denies that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah. Philo-Semitism is good, but in Hagee it has become a substitute for the Gospel. Huckabee shouldn’t touch Hagee with a ten-foot pole.
If we’re worried about a rise in the missionary zeal of Mormons, in the event of a Mormon US president, perhaps we ought to study that new CDF document on evangelism.
***********************************
From the new CDF document:
“Although non-Christians can be saved through the grace which God bestows in “ways known to him”, the Church cannot fail to recognize that such persons are lacking a tremendous benefit in this world: to know the true face of God and the friendship of Jesus Christ, God-with-us. . . . The revelation of the fundamental truths about God, about the human person and the world, is a great good for every human person, while living in darkness without the truths about ultimate questions is an evil and is often at the root of suffering and slavery which can at times be grievous. This is why Saint Paul does not hesitate to describe conversion to the Christian faith as liberation “from the power of darkness.” . . . It is an inestimable benefit to live within the universal embrace of the friends of God which flows from communion in the life-giving flesh of his Son, to receive from him the certainty of forgiveness of sins and to live in the love that is born of faith. The Church wants everyone to share in these goods so that they may possess the fullness of truth and the fullness of the means of salvation, in order “to enter into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”
I believe that the point of the document is to encourage Catholics to evangelize for the Truth of the original and only Church of Jesus Christ. That is exactly why we should be concerned with a rise in the missionary zeal of Mormons, fueled by a Mormon president. Just a thought…I am certainly open to differing opinions.
Esau, I hate to put it this way, but you presume far too much thinking that I haven’t been educated about Islam in the slightest.
I went back to double check, and again, in return to someone asking if she really believed a people hated us for who we are, not what we do, she said “these ones do”, referring to Muslims.
I asked simply if she meant that all Muslims believe this, she returned asking if all Muslims hate us. It seemed very much to me to be a step saying “I think all Muslims believe that we are bad, because they all hate us.”
This is frankly, not acceptable. And since some of you apparently don’t like your conservative 1st, Catholic when convenient notions being challenged, you are trying to defend what is undefendable. Well, I’m not going to sit around and try to make Catholic truth about dehumanizing persons of other religions subject to my political aims.
If Mary wants to clarify, by all means. If not, you folks can’t read her mind and make the evil right. Plain and simple, right and wrong, look the mirror at that giant splinter in your face before shoving it in mine.
Esau, I hate to put it this way, but you presume far too much thinking that I haven’t been educated about Islam in the slightest.
You’re not — really.
If so, amongst many other things, please explain to me Sura 9 verse 29 in the Quran.
And please, don’t quote to me what the Western text has revised it as being — but the genuine, historical, literal arabic translation.
Thank-you.
Oh, please. Can you tell me what the I Ching means to you in Mandarin? Are you saying that I shouldn’t bother with the Bible unless I speak Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, AND Latin?
You CAN know a thing from a translation, or most people would have to say they know NOTHING about the Bible or Christ. While obviously knowing the languages of the writing would help, you cannot say nobody can understand anything about a faith without it.
Would you say you know NOTHING about Hindu beliefs if you took a semester course? No, you’d say you know something, although not as much as another perhaps.
I’m glad you are a renaissance man, knowing all of this, but PLEASE don’t call others ignorant just because they must not have the plethora of knowledge you do.
You CAN know a thing from a translation
Not in this case since most modern English translations only provide the more politically correct, euphemistic version of what the arabic actually says.
Also, for somebody who carps:
“Esau, I hate to put it this way, but you presume far too much”
How about your comments:
“If Mary wants to clarify, by all means. If not, you folks can’t read her mind and make the evil right.”
and
“No offense, Mary, but when I call you out for a blanket statement about Muslims hating us”
It’s ironic that you should say “look the mirror at that giant splinter in your face before shoving it in mine”, when, really, this is exactly what you did to Mary!
Well, since the stupid spam filter system doesn’t like my long reply any more than it liked Chicken’s in another thread, let me answer incompletely in terse mode.
I perceive slander, asked for clarification, still didn’t get it. Perhaps there’s a reason I feel there’s a problem.
Esau, I’m afraid I’m never going to reach you. The way you say that is exactly how abortionists react when you bring the accusations to them. I see why the hobby horser and you were always butting heads. For what it’s worth, enjoy yourself, being in message boards with you is counterproductive to growing in holiness to me, leading to anger and frustration while gaining nothing.
Jarnor, you claim to have asked “if [Mary] really believed a people hated us for who we are, not what we do,” and that “she said ‘these ones do’, referring to Muslims.”
But what you really asked was “do you honestly believe that people hate America solely because of who we are and not at all because of what we’ve done?”
Mary responded, “These ones do.”
“These ones” in reference to “people” is most easily taken in context to mean the terrorists or extremists, whereas “these ones” in reference to “a people” is most easily taken in context to mean Muslims.
Given this important distinction, why did you erroneously insert the article “a” to your claim quoted above?
Mike Petrik you are being childish and obtuse. The answer to your Croatian-American hypothetical from ANY sincere candidate should be “Why should it matter what ethnicity the person is?” You are simply infering more into Mitt’s answer in order to buttress your own preconceived opinions of him.
Your comment “Referring to religions with which we disagree as cults is infantile.” is itself infantile and shows your ignorance and lack of reasoning on the Mormon and Islamic cults – both hold marked characteristics of the dictionary definition. I could go into this point-by-point but somehow I feel any knowledge on this subject would be lost on you.
You sound like a severe whiner who cries, “boo-hoo! You’re a big meanie/biggot/nazi/baby-killer” anytime someone disagrees with you. Maybe next time try some honest discourse before shoving your thumb in your mouth.
Memphis, I am not painting Mormons and Muslims with a broad brush, I am stating facts about their respective cults. Mormonism believes the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon, that the human race is ranked into casts by god(blacks being at the bottom) and hold a fanatic reverence to whoever prophet du jour is within their church. Islam beleives it has the right to subjugate or kill all non-believers at will (more appropriately whenever it’s convenient for them), that anyone who leaves their religion gets the death penalty, and that women are mentally 1/2 inferior to men.
Whether there are “good” Muslims or Mormons is not the issue. The point is I don’t want ANYONE in the white house with the ability to make policy (domestic or foreign) who subscribes to these belief systems.
Jarnor, Esau and Mary, as someone who has studied Islam (Qur’an, Sunnah, Hadith & Shari’a) and lived in a Muslim country, I’d like to jump in here. Islam is full of dichotomy (or “escape hatches”) to allow it to coexist among non-Muslim majorities and subjugate over non-Muslim minorities. In one surah you will find “let there be no compulsion in religion” or “to you your religion and to me mine”, then in others you will see, “take not the Jew or Christian as your friends” and “kill all unbeleivers wherever they may hide”.
Muslims who follow the Qur’an and take it as the literal word-for-word dictation from god (the vast majority of Muslims) have no alternative but to hate Christians and Christian culture. It is mandated in the Qur’an. But we now have a western-style cafeteria-Islam which is springing up in non-Muslim countries. You may indeed find good people who are Muslim and don’t hate Christians, but you will not find good Muslims who do not hate Christians. I don’t know if this makes sense to you or not.
deusdonat,
Jarnor, Esau and Mary
ROFL! This seems like the Un-Holy Family
At any rate, thank-you for that.
Muslims who follow the Qur’an and take it as the literal word-for-word dictation from god (the vast majority of Muslims) have no alternative but to hate Christians and Christian culture. It is mandated in the Qur’an.
Actually, there was a Quran scholar that was interviewed on the news radio station here that even stated that the Quran has been historically interpreted in this manner and that it is the modern Muslims of today who have either become ignorant of this or fail to acknowledge it, experiencing some sort of revisionism, not clinging to the genuine and historical meaning of the verses.
He said that this is stated plainly in the Quran.
No muslim can dispute that.
deus: you are far stronger on emotion than logic. The post referencing the Croatian-American example was intended to simply illustrate that Romney’s comment was likely intended to respond to a question grounded in concerns of political representation. He is not asking to be elected because he is a Mormon. If that were the case, only then would the charge of hypocrisy be credible. Other posters understood this. I think it is you are obtuse. Furthermore, you are not the final arbiter of what or who a good Muslim is. I have several friends who are both good people and Muslims. In each case they are serious practicers of their faith and believe they are good Muslims. They would take great offense at your mean and unfounded generalizations, and rightly so.
Finally, I do not claim to be an expert on the Koran, but I do know that all words are subject to proper exegesis, which is good given Christ’s injuction:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:25-27.
Quoting Muslim fundamentalists as though they are the final and only authority for understanding the Koran is every bit as perilous as quoting Christian fundamentalists regarding Biblical interpretation. The fact is that Muslims have no Pope — no comparable final authority. They disagree among themselves, just as Christians do, perhaps even more so.
Esau (yes, it certainly sounds like a biblical trio) you are correct. In Islam, there exists a component of scholarship called the Tafsir, which is akin to the Judaic Talmud. Tafsir is a collection of classical Islamic scholarship on the Qur’an and forms the basis of interpretation. Meaning, what did the original Muslims think about Surah X, Y and Z? It’s in the Tafsir.
part 1…
And deus,
You are spreading misconceptions and oversimplifications about the Mormon faith as well. For example, with regard to the whore of Babylon = Catholic Church accusation, I suggest you look up “Mormon Myths: Great and Abominable Church” Michael R. Ash 2002. History and truth is always messier than we wish. Sadly, some protestants and non-believers have simplified and caricatured the history of the Catholic Church to reinforce their prejudices. We should avoid doing the same to others.
DJ If Mitt is asked if he would have Muslims in his cabinet and his answer is no because they don’t merrit representation, then ti is logical that he should be held up to the same standard. The tone of my post was indeed not very Christian or charitable towards you and was in fact a knee-jerk reaction to your childish confrontational name-calling, for which I apologize. But seriously, if I were you I’d stay out of discussions about Islam unless you are willing to bow towards those who have actually studied the subject.
DJ regarding your other post, I don’t need to read a book on Mormon apologetics to understand Mormonism. I go staight to the source. Thank you for your offer, but I stand by my previous ascertions.
“I will not, sir, because it is NOT clear to me it wasn’t slander against all members of another religion, nor has she said it is not.”
The criterion is “clear to you”? I’m supposed to read your mind?
I am under no obligation to make my statements such that they can not be misread by someone who regards himself as entitled to read them as maliciously as possible.
Deus: An argument that is nothing more than an appeal to yourself as an authority is pretty funny, no?
And you called Romney a hypocrite. It doesn’t wash. When asked whether he’d appoint a Muslim to a cabinet post it was reasonably plain that the questioner was asking whether Romney would appoint a Muslim precisely because he is a Muslim. Romney’s response in the negative is only inconsistent with his candidacy if he is asking Americans to support him precisely because he is Mormon, which is not the case.
And finally, your “source” would be …?
Mike, it was NOT “reasonably plain”. Once again, you are simply inferring this. I’m sorry, but your incessant name-calling shows you are really just not that bright, reasonable, charitable or in other words worth talking to.
Merry Christmas.
Mary,
he’s all yours. In the spirit of charity I will not be dealing with mental midgets on this site.
deus,
I stand by my interpretation of Romney’s remark, which I believe is much more plausible than yours.
I apologize if I called you any names. The closest that I can recall offhand was my reference to one of your comments as representative of bigotry [“Personally, I think it would be in the best interest if both cults were equally “under-represented” here and abroad”], which I concede may have been a little harsh.
And am I misreading you in inferring that you believe I’m a mental midget? If so, perhaps. I have friends and relatives who’d probably agree. But in that case I think you may be misunderstanding Mary’s post, which was directed at Jarnor and not me. Or perhaps you’ve been part of that colloquy as well — I may not have noticed.
deus,
I stand by my interpretation of Romney’s remark, which I believe is much more plausible than yours.
I apologize if I called you any names. The closest that I can recall offhand was my reference to one of your comments as representative of bigotry [“Personally, I think it would be in the best interest if both cults were equally “under-represented” here and abroad”], which I concede may have been a little harsh.
And am I misreading you in inferring that you believe I’m a mental midget? If so, perhaps. I have friends and relatives who’d probably agree. But in that case I think you may be misunderstanding Mary’s post, which was directed at Jarnor and not me. Or perhaps you’ve been part of that colloquy as well — I may not have noticed.
Actually, he said that YOUR COMMENT was NOT CLEAR to him; he didn’t list any criteria. Where are you getting that?
It’s a simple question: In the statement in question, did you mean that “all Muslims” hate Americans or that “extremist Muslims” hate Americans? Your answer need only be two words and could easily provide clarification. I don’t think bickering about intent and interpretation is needed or necessary.
I would clarify and reiterate my own position here that it is quite obvious that not ALL Muslims hate America, or they would not be swarming on us in droves and setting up shops, joining the work-force or simply living off public benefits. However, once again, the Qur’an clearly calls for the subjugation and/or death of all who oppose (see: disagree with) Islam. As the US is seen as a Christian nation which went to war with Muslim people and nations, any “Good Muslim” (i.e. one who practices their faith to the letter) must by nature of conviction hate America.
And guess what boys and girls many of them are living right here with us.
Joanna,
With all respect, I think Mary’s post (below) is reasonably clear.
“I post about an assertion about why people hate us. You treat this as a statement about “a majority of Muslims.” Until you answer MY question, your question is a shameless red herring because you are treating statements about one group as if they applied to another.
(Posted by: Mary | Dec 12, 2007 12:54:44 PM)”
I don’t disagree that Mary could resolve the matter by just answering the question plainly, and I think she should. That said, it is belittling for a person to have to deny being a bigot without good reason. While Mary can and should answer Jarnor’s question, it is understandable why Mary might decline to answer a question that she believes — quite correctly in my opinion — to be uncalled for. Perhaps Jarnor can shed some light on this by responding to my question from very early this morning.