Your Editor had said, here and here and here, that if he became the Republican presidential nominee, the Democrats, not directly through the campaigns, but via their willing partners in the professional media, would keep reminding the American people, sometimes subtly and sometimes not, that Mitt Romney is a Mormon.
From Donald Douglas:
How the Mormon Church Shaped Mitt Romney
Here’s the big biography piece at the New York Times yesterday, “Romney’s Faith, Silent but Deep.”
Ann Althouse calls this fascinating: “‘Mitt and Ann Romney’s marriage is strong because they believe they will live together in an eternal afterlife…‘”
But Joel Pollak isn’t fascinated at all, at Big Journalism, “NY Times Ignored Obama’s Wright, Focuses on Romney’s Mormon Faith.”
And pro-Romney blogger Jennifer Rubin goes after the Times, “The Mormon obsession“:
The piece is a troubling, and in many cases a bizarre, attempt to picture Romney as “The Mormon candidate,” a standard that would repel most Americans if applied to another faith.
Word.
The New York Times’ piece sounds positive at first glance, but it is definitely written to let you know just how . . . different . . . Mormonism is from more conventional Christian denominations, and that, despite any abjuration that Mr Romney doesn’t try to impose his religious views on others, his political views are so obviously shaped by the Mormon Church:
Mr. Romney’s penchant for rules mirrors that of his church, where he once excommunicated adulterers and sometimes discouraged mothers from working outside the home. He may have many reasons for abhorring debt, wanting to limit federal power, promoting self-reliance and stressing the unique destiny of the United States, but those are all traditionally Mormon traits as well.
The implication is inescapable: Mr Romney may hold some fairly standard conservative political views, but he holds them because he is a Mormon.1
Joel Pollak was unsparing in his criticism of the Times’ hypocrisy: as they carefully tell us all about Governor Romney’s Mormon belioefs, and how they relate to his political positions, the Times was just as determined not to connect Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) in 2008 with the racist views of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Mr and Mrs Obama had been members for twenty years:
Needless to say, the Times has never held Obama to anything like the same standard. It ignored the racist teachings of Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ–of which Obama was well aware, despite protestations to the contrary–and fails to hold him to account when his actions violate the tenets of that bizarre, radicalized and racialized congregation. (Wright himself has not been shy in attributing Obama’s perceived compromises to political expediency–as well as to “the Jews.”)
Just as Ronald Reagan deployed acting skills on the trail and Barack Obama relied on the language of community organizing, Mitt Romney bears the marks of the theology and culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
One quick paragraph, which tells us that President Reagan’s past was shaped by his acting career, and that President Obama’s by his early life as a “community organizer,” but Governor Romney “bears the marks of the theology and culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Jennifer Rubin noted the Times’ point that Mr Romney’s political positions are all traditional Mormon positions, and noted that such are pretty much traditional Jewish positions as well, but anyone who wrote that would be quickly identified as an anti-Semite. I’d add that they are fairly mainstream Protestant positions as well.
(S)ince Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is also a Mormon, how would one explain that he is unbothered by big government and not all that interested in curtailing the debt?
Well, that’s easy enough to answer: it’s the same as 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Senator John F Kerry (D-MA) being a Catholic; his political positions in no way matched those of the Church of which he claimed to be a member.2 The Distinguished Gentleman from Nevada doesn’t seem to let what he says are his religious beliefs mean anything to him, kind of like the (purportedly) Catholic House Minority Leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), doesn’t vote or support positions which would in any way indicate that she is actually Catholic.
The editors of The New York Times will, of course, endorse President Obama for re-election, and there will be more stories to remind the voters that Governor Romney is a Mormon; we can count on more articles “explaining” to the general public just what differences exist between Mormonism and more mainline Protestant Christian churches. What we won’t see from the Times is an article like Gary S Smith’s3 in Crisis magazine, The Controversial Faith of Barack Obama. In it, the author noted that:
As president, Obama has frequently testified to his Christian faith, most notably at four National Prayer Breakfasts, and linked many of his policies to biblical teachings. Contrary to the wishes of many of his supporters, he has also continued George W. Bush’s Faith-based Initiatives.
Obama’s rhetoric and actions have led to conflicting claims about his presidency. John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College, recently labeled Obama perhaps the “most explicitly Christian president in American history” because of his extensive citation of the Bible and copious references to Christian faith. Fea stressed that Obama regularly read the Bible and prayed, was being mentored by evangelical pastors (most notably Joel Hunter, Kirbyjon Caldwell, and T.D. Jakes), accentuated both faith and works, urged Americans to follow God’s command to love our neighbors as ourselves, and strove to build the kingdom of God on earth.
Yet, as President, Mr Obama has pushed some very unChristian policies. His recent endorsement of same-sex “marriage” was, he claimed, supported by Christ’s teaching of the Golden Rule. Of course, given that the Bible specifically condemns homosexual activity, in both the Old and New Testaments,4 the President’s rationale is specious. President Obama has pushed forcing religious organizations which are opposed to artificial contraception to have to provide it anyway, through their health insurance plans; perhaps that would be the President pressing his own version of Christianity on those who might have different beliefs.
The best way that your Editor could describe it is that President Obama talks about religion, but does not live his supposed faith, and is willing to force his political beliefs on others, even if they disagree, while Governor Romney doesn’t seem to talk about his faith all that much, but clearly lives it, though he doesn’t try to enact parts of Mormon theology that are not justifiable through secular arguments into the law.
Or, perhaps more simply, Mitt Romney believes in God, through the specific theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, while Barack Obama believes in Barack Obama.
_______________________________________
- Your Editor has expressed support for each of those four items previously, but your Editor isn’t Mormon; he is Catholic. I will suggest here that John Hitchcock would also strongly support those positions, and he is neither a Mormon nor a Catholic, but a Protestant Christian. ↩
- Your Editor doesn’t think that many Catholics saw Mr Kerry as one of them; Catholics, who normally give a majority of their votes to Democrats, gave 52% of their votes to George Bush, a Methodist, over Mr Kerry, supposedly a Catholic. ↩
- Dr. Gary Scott Smith chairs the history department at Grove City College and is a fellow for faith and the presidency with The Center for Vision & Values. He is the author of “Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush.“ ↩
- The Bible does not document that Jesus spoke about homosexual activity specifically, but in the Sermon on the Mount, he said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth: until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18) ↩
Mr Editor concludes:
Now we’ve reached the low point where our Editor has assigned to himself the duty to judge whether or not certain politicians, specifically President Obama, are living up to their professed religious beliefs. Apparently he now thinks he has the ability to look directly into a person’s heart. How arrogant and utterly stupid is this?
If our Editor would be honest enough with himself and his religion, he would force himself to admit that Jesus Christ himself fits the mode of a progressive liberal, as per his focus on helping and feeding the poor, the infirm, and the disabled.
Here is an evangelical Christian, Gary Vance, who has articulated this Christ-like ideal quite well:
So I say, Mr Editor, that your brand of Conservatism is contrary to the teachings of Christ, in fact, contrary to the teachings of your own faith, Roman Catholicism.
How dare you write a critique of President Obama’s religious beliefs and actions, when it is actually you yourself who should be criticized for not living up to the tenets of your Christian faith. In other words, you are a hypocrite, just like the rest of us peons!
I think a good argument can be made that you, Mr Editor, have chosen your politics to be that of an anti-Christ. A democratically chosen government is the only entity in a position to render the aggregate basic needs of the downtrodden in our midst, in my view. Yet you and your minions adamantly reject such actions in behalf of the needy. Shame on you!
Yeah! And how dare you give PAP your own bandwidth to write his own blog!!!
Wagonwheel wrote:
The difference is one which would escape you: Jesus said that we are to be generous and charitable and giving; you think that the message is one of grasping and greediness and taking.
We are supposed to be generous with our own money; you would seize the money of others.
WW complains:
How dare I? Freedom of speech allows me to dare to say what I wish. Or perhaps you are more in sympathy with the social studies teacher who yelled at students because they dared to criticize Teh Won?
the teacher caught on tape has been suspended (fortunately), with pay (unfortunately) for her rant.
Jesus teachings include not stealing from your neighbor; both President Obama and you advocate theft. Jesus teachings tell us that homosexual activity is sinful; President Obama advocates trying to corrupt the idea of marriage by including same sex couples within its definition. And I’m pretty sure that Jesus wouldn’t have much kind to say about your support for abortion.
Based on Jesus’ parables, he would say “take every cent that person living on Welfare has and throw her out into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, then give that money you took from her to that venture capitalist over there. Those who have will have more and those who don’t have, what they have will be taken from them.”
I recently quoted large blocs of scripture in the comment section of a previous article, and Perry became absolutely unglued. He hated what I wrote and what I quoted. Absolutely hated it.
What large blocs of scripture did I quote? Not certain at this time, but I do know those large blocs of scripture were Red Letter blocs. And you know what it means when scripture is written in red letters.
And Perry was beside himself with hatred and anger and spittle flying all over his monitor as he pounded on his keyboard.
And, Editor, your first footnote is accurate. The Mormon moral code is very strong and very accurate and very commendable and very Christian-based. While Mormons are absolutely not Christians, and I have said as much on multiple occasions, I can and will support Mormons for higher office based on their stated positions and goals and their track record of activities. For instance, I endorsed Mia Love long before most people had even heard of her, and she is a (black) Mormon.
There are very serious reasons why I will not vote for Romney, and those reasons revolve around his acting in opposition to Mormon and Christian teaching. Not a single reason I have for opposing Romney’s nomination had anything to do with Mormon theology. Not one. But the Lamestream Media will trumpet Romney’s Mormonism as reason to reject him (all while hiding Reid’s proclaimed — but not lived — Mormonism).
Hardly, Mr Editor. Sounds to me as though you are beginning to actually believe your extremist rhetoric, or is it Rush’s?
Right, like Republican policies and Wall Street greed have stolen the jobs and pensions of tens of millions of Americans. You need to straighten out your message, at least basing it on fact instead of lies!”
My comment was not about your right to free speech, but was about your not living up to your articles of faith as a professed Roman Catholic. Yet you have the nerve to criticize our President for the exact same sin you are committing yourself. For your sake, thank god for the crutch known as confession: Sin today, confess tomorrow! The same sort of hypocrisy has been committed by some priests who act as a god, when simultaneously committing egregious sins and crimes, then attempting to cover it all up.
How is it that I steal from my neighbor? I attribute that behavior to unregulated Wall Streeters and a tax system which favors the rich.
Regarding homosexuals as sinners, I say no more or less than that you and I are both sinners. Why have a priest tell us so? Moreover, where is it that Jesus opposes homosexuality? How can Jesus or anyone oppose an abnormality which is genetic? I do not agree with our President on same-sex marriages, but I do support civil unions. What ever happened to you libertarian instincts when it comes to homosexuality and civil unions, Mr Editor? Not much loving kindness on this issue from you, nor on most social issues for that matter. Finally, as you well know, I strongly oppose abortion. So stop your lying, Mr Editor!
[Comment edited to fix formatting problems; no changes made to content. -- Editor]
And while on the subject of free speech, you have expressed support for the Citizens’ United version of free speech, which is a very radical stance indeed. “Corporate personhood is not a matter of free speech, and concerns abotu campaign contributions have a long history:” See here!
“Far from being “radical”, my stance is that of the Founding Fathers.”
See the next post for the link, since I cannot have more than one link per post on your blog.
Here is the link which goes with the end of the previous post.
Yeah, Jesus was really pro-Partial Birth Abortion [eye roll]
Of course, it has been pointed out time and time again to Passive-Aggressive Perry that corporate personhood is a concept that dates back to the time of the Founders.
Does he learn? No. Does he care? No. Such is life in Passive-Aggressive Perry’s la-la alternate reality.
I thought I had earlier seen the word “neglected” imbedded in the puling quoted above. If it appeared at all, it must have been in some other passage.
This kind of phrasing is much better, because it logically implies that if we can ensure that Mr. X is not actively trodden upon, we can then feel sure that there is no moral duty to compensate an obnoxious or annoying Mr. X for any ostensibly politically inflicted stomping.
It’s good to know where to look in that strangling rhetorical cat’s cradle of pseudo-moral obligations which the left would impose, for those strings that can most readily be cut.
He exemplifies the kind of human product that appears to sometimes result from a process of growing up knowing that it owes everything that it is, and has, to a coercive power directed by a state employed bureaucrat against innocent others on its behalf. Certainly not all who have grown up dining off public largess feel this kind of resentment against those who have not. But some, apparently, do, and make a life long fetish of trying to refashion the charity they received as a political duty that was owed to them.
Perry misconstrues Jesus’ words when such misconstruing can lead to Perry stealing from Hoagie in order to take a cut for himself and then give the remainder to an illegal alien living illegally in the US. But when I quote Jesus’ words that convict Perry and his ilk, he flies into a hate-filled rage, since it is impossible for Perry to misconstrue the words to fit the Leftists’ theft motif.
WW wrote:
We have the furthest left Administration in our history, yet somehow, some way, even this Administration cannot seem to find any actual theft — theft being a crime, you know — in anything you’ve said, save by a couple of Ponzi scheme operators.
And you know that I am “not living up to (my) articles of faith as a professed Roman Catholic” how? Have you somehow been snooping around my hometown and catching me in theft or adultery or murder? Now, it is certainly a possibility than I am an adulterer and thief and even a murderer, but even if that were the case, how you would know so is beyond me.
But, of course, what you are conflating with me “not living up to (my) articles of faith as a professed Roman Catholic” is my opposition to welfare and the government taking more and more control over people’s personal lives. The Emperor Nero never thought he should tell his subjects what they should eat, but Barack and Michelle Obama think they can. The Emperor Tiberius never tried to order all of his subjects to buy a particular thing, but the Democrats believe that they can.
As for confession, you clearly haven’t the slightest idea. Protestants hold that they need confess to the LORD only in private prayer, and that their sins will be forgiven. The Catholic Church uses Confession and Absolution (more recently called Reconciliation, but I prefer the older terms), based on John 20:21-23 where the LORD, after the Resurrection, breathes on the apostles and says “whose sins you forgive are forgiven; whose sins you retain are retained.” Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins.
Many years ago, a Protestant friend of mine was talking to another Catholic worker and me, and said something very similar, “Y’all go and raise Hell all week and then just go to Confession and get everything wiped clean.” Jeff beat me to the answer, saying “That’s because you haven’t sat in that chair.”
And now we have open Confession: the Confessional you’ve seen in the movies, with the screen providing anonymity, still exists, but it’s almost useless in a smaller parish: the priest knows your voice! Now we have an open Confessional, where you sit face to face with the priest, and I think that most Catholics use that; we all know that the priest knows who we are anyway. But if you think that Confession is easy, just try it once!
To me, our way is better, because it forces you to actually confront your sins, but the Protestants may certainly do as they wish.
Favors them? The higher producers are taxed at ever-increasing rates, as they earn more; our current tax system disfavors them! As for how you steal from your neighbor, I believe that men ought to be charitable with their own money; you would use the police power of the state to seize money from those unwilling to be charitable, and use their money for the purposes you think are good.
The Bible nowhere condemns the condition of homosexuality; it does condemn homosexual activity as sinful. Homosexuals have the religious obligation to remain celibate.
As for you “strongly oppos(ing) abortion,” you have told us that, many times, but would not allow a single law which would actually prevent it. You seem to believe that the government has a duty to tell us what we should eat and whether we should buy health insurance, and have even supported conscription, but concomitantly hold that government ought to have exactly zero authority over abortion.
WW makes the same mistake he has made so many times previously:
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press . . . .” Nowhere in the First Amendment will you find any references to people, to persons, to corporations or anything like that. Rather, the First Amendment specifies subjects on which the federal government has no authority to legislate, period.
Of course, the First Amendment does specifically protect the right of the people to assemble peaceably, to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Is not a corporation an assembly of people? Why shouldn’t an assembly of people have the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances?
The Editor said:
That’s where large number of Evangelical Protestant denominations (including, but not limited to Baptists, Grace Brethren (of which I have been a member since the 1970s)) and the Catholic Church will disagree. Because the Bible very clearly calls homosexuality an abomination, an unnatural act, sinful, a choice, a rejection of Truth for a lie.
And where did Jesus come out against homosexuality? How about when He said he wasn’t changing one jot or tiddle in the Law (which declared homosexuality to be an abomination)? Since homosexuality is immorality, and since Jesus declared the immoral will have no place in Heaven, and since Jesus declared very specifically He was not walking the Earth to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, any who claim Jesus has no problem with homosexuals is either ignorant, deceived, or lying.