Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. – Mitt Romney
The terrible irony of the brouhaha on Race today is that Steve Deace is a natural extension of this line of thinking. Freedom requires religion? Oh, really now? The Pandora’s Box that this line of thinking opens is: whose religion? To what extent? And why should Evangelicals not judge Mormons for their religious convictions, if there is no legitimate reason for religious worldviews to intersect with politics?
Live by religion, die by religion. You reap what you sow. Ideas have consequences, after all: if it is perfectly appropriate for religion to influence one’s political decisions, then it’s perfectly appropriate to come to the conclusion that anyone rejecting mainstream Christianity for Mormonism has a deficit of judgment that colors his overall worldview — and therefore, that candidate must be rejected in favor of one who has accepted the True Faith.
There is an escape hatch here, of course: contend that faith has no place in politics, that public policy should be the realm of reason, not religion, and that a candidate should be judged solely by his secular record. But if religion and freedom are interconnected, as Romney contends, then that idea is out the window. So long as that idea is still with us, then Steve Deace has every right to reject Romney for the religious reasons that he does.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
“So long as that idea is still with us, then Steve Deace has every right to reject Romney for the religious reasons that he does.”
Why do you say Steve Decae rejects Romney for religous reasons? If you take him at his words, that’s certainly not what he says. Also the only “bad” thing he says about Mormons is that they’re not Christians, but he’s quite clear that he means this as a purely theological statement, that has nothing to do with Romney’s political career. Its the Rombots who have jumped from Steve says Mormons aren’t Christians, thus Steve is a bigot, thus Steve doesn’t support Romney because he’s a bigot. I think the only thing they got right in that chain is “Steve says Mormons aren’t Christians”.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
You can’t have freedom without religion because if you disallow the free practice of religion, as some countries have done, can you really call that freedom? Those countries certainly aren’t free.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Pfft. Steve Deace quite obviously dislikes Romney for religious reasons. These guys have been raised to think that Mormonism is an insane cult. I’m just putting 2 and 2 together, here.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Mac,
If you find yourself on this thread, do you have any theory as to how we performed so well in Woodbury County, Iowa on November 4th? Iowa shifted by around the national average but we still won the swing county of Woodbury, which holds Sioux City.
It’s kind of funny if you look back at the map of Iowa during the caucuses. Romney won Woodbury County easily surprisingly. I guess that county was never that strong for Obama given that Hillary tied him there in the caucus.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
3. You mix up putting two and two together with jumping to conclusions. #3 is a pretty clear logical fallacy. I’m sure once you put your “sky high IQ” to use, you will be able to see that.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
What a lack of imagination. It’s also a failure to observe how faith is actually lived out by millions of Americans.
Religious bigotry and Private Faith are two snowflakes in a blizzard of ways of religious communities approach the rest of the world.
People have ways of life besides keeping their faith hidden in a broom closet, or treating members of other religions with bigotry.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
People have ways of life besides keeping their faith hidden in a broom closet, or treating members of other religions with bigotry.
What’s your point? All I’m saying is that if religious values are appropriate to inject into one’s voting behavior, then voting against someone because he’s a Mormon — and openly expressing that — is okay, no?
March 29th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
“Lack of imagination” is rather generous way of stating Alex’s understanding of religion.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Alex, yes, you’re right here. If you’re going to say freedom and religion are intertwined, then of course it’s okay to vote based on religion. I completely agree. I would have serious doubts voting for certain faiths. I think the mormons here feel that it’s too bad evangelicals don’t support Romney because mormonism and evangelicalism are so similar in so many ways but focus on each other’s differences. Mormons have a deep-seated persecution complex, evangelicals envy the mormon power and vitality that they so desperately try to inject into their movements.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“All I’m saying is that if religious values are appropriate to inject into one’s voting behavior, then voting against someone because he’s a Mormon — and openly expressing that — is okay, no?”
It depends on if the religous values effect how the person views politics. Clearly one’s view of when life begins has an important effect on one’s politics. Whether or not someone believes in the trinity, not so much. If one was to oppose someone for political office based on a theological point that had nothing to do with politics, than I think that would be a problem.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
This is an exellent post and an excellent follow up to my posts.
Which direction are we going in? This is the dialogue we must have.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
However, Alex, you must acknowledge another point. The founding of our nation on the concept that humans deserve certain inalienable rights is a very religious concept. Otherwise, where do these rights come from if they are inalienable? To say that mankind is guaranteed something, who guarantees it? If it comes from man, then the statement is false. Because man has certainly stolen freedom and the pursuit of happiness from man. However, if you look at the fact that man is free even under bondage and slavery, then you point to something much greater. Mankind is free as a race and species in a way that no other species or creation shares.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
OH Joe #9: Very perceptive — and nicely phrased, as usual.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
However, Alex, you must acknowledge another point. The founding of our nation on the concept that humans deserve certain inalienable rights is a very religious concept. Otherwise, where do these rights come from if they are inalienable? To say that mankind is guaranteed something, who guarantees it? If it comes from man, then the statement is false. Because man has certainly stolen freedom and the pursuit of happiness from man. However, if you look at the fact that man is free even under bondage and slavery, then you point to something much greater. Mankind is free as a race and species in a way that no other species or creation shares.
The concept that humans have inalienable rights stemmed from Enlightenment thought, which was profoundly anti-religious for its time period.
To me, it stems from the natural order of things. What are the fruits of production, achievement, and individualism? Unprecedented prosperity. Moreover, by what basis can man intrude on another man’s sovereignty? From what does he derive this “right”?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
If one was to oppose someone for political office based on a theological point that had nothing to do with politics, than I think that would be a problem.
What if someone was to assert that if someone accepted shoddy theology, then it showed a lack of judgment and that we wouldn’t want to trust someone with a deficit of judgment with the presidency?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
#7, We have a secret ballot in America.
What are you suggesting, an inquisition or tribunal to regulate how people are allowed to vote?
“You aren’t allowed to vote in accord with your religious identity. You must vote as an atheist today”
Or do you just want to use social pressure to push Christians into the basement as unfit for public life?
It’s a perversion of Christianity to use it a cudgel against politicians of another religion. Christians who do this perverted act should repent.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
This is exactly the wrong debate to be having right now as Obama and the Democrats slowly kill capitalism and freedom.
But Alex, the inherent flaw in Locke’s natural rights were that even though they were supposedly derived from natural order (which somehow many other philosophies missed), they were granted by man and his government. That becomes a problem for the reasons Ohio points out.
There’s a very distinct reason Jefferson chose to change the word “natural” to “unalienable” and ascribed them to a Creator. The rights of freedom are assured to us because of an unalterable Supreme Being, not because of some human philosophy or government.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Can you name one successful atheistic society?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Interesting…perspective from Africa.
http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global%5B_id%5D=21216
March 29th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
16 – I’m saying that either Mormons need to shut up and stop whining about “bigoted Evangelicals” or embrace secularism.
17 – You invite religious hacks into the party and they don’t want to discuss anything but religion. They’re in politics to worship Jesus, not to build coalitions and save capitalism.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Can you name one successful atheistic society?
The alternative to theocratic crap is not an “atheistic society,” but a secular one. And I can certainly name a secular society that’s been successful: the United States of America. Our Constitution was decried by religious leaders at the time because it failed to mention God or Jesus.
Our very Constitution mentions religion but once — to note that Congress needs to stay out of it.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
#14,
To me, it stems from the natural order of things. What are the fruits of production, achievement, and individualism? Unprecedented prosperity. Moreover, by what basis can man intrude on another man’s sovereignty? From what does he derive this “right”?
There is no natural requirement to justify what you do. In nature desire is the reason why you kill the other man.
In nature the act is done because nature knows nothing of rights. A right implies permission to do something. Without a higher authority permission is not required to do whatever you like.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
no, that was a dodge.
Secularism is a form of atheism.
Our founders created a non-religious government based on Judeo-Christian values. They specifically stated that our Constitution was made for a religious and moral people. Every society needs a moral framework in order to maintain order. Otherwise you have anarchy.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
You can have this conversation or not! But if the anti Mormon sentiment and disguised attacks continue and Romney looses again because of religion, I CAN GUARANTEE EVEN UTAH WILL GO BLUE! Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Idaho will all be certain to go blue. Yes, people have there right to tell Mormons they are not welcome in the party and Mormons also have there right to get sick of it!
This rationalizing and flawed arrogant logic that we need to discuss Mormons, when we all know it will only make things worse with Evangelicals, has got to go! It is your choice people! Lie about Romney and hate him with a passion and I will have no choice but to believe to it is bigotry! Why else would people lie about someone so much??????????
I think his article said choices have consequences and he is exactly right! Give Romney a break, he even said he would have rephrased that religion requires freedom blah blah blah differently! It it were not for freedom our religion would have been successfully exterminated. Romney was on the right path in what he was saying.
Again choices have consequences and I can guarantee Mormons are watching alot closer than the party and the media seem to think. Why do you think so many Mormons that voted for Huntsman either did not vote for McCain or voted for someone else? Why do you think Nevada and Colorado went blue. I know many Mormons that could not vote for a party that has said you are not welcome! Huntsman won 20 points higher than McCain won and I talked to many who just could reward a party that has said Mormons are not welcome and this bigotry is fully there fault!
Now even the spokesman for the GOP has a problem with Mormons! Steele was on Bill Maher saying things that were’nt true about Mormons in a way that was desperate and enthusiastic. He was for Huckabee and then he was for Pawlenty for VP! The biggest problem I have is that people attack us, rather than attack the bigotry! They say it is our fault! The party and it’s leaders continue to not speak out fairly and strongly! It is fine with me!
Vote against Romney and we will see what happens to this country! i think it was ironic that Iowa got historic flooding, after the great underground movement of stopping a Mormon from the getting the nomination! There was so much email and mailings and preachers almost telling there people not to vote for Romney. I mean heck, these people can not even welcome a Mormon as VP! When, when are you people going to speak out against this?? I promise, Obama will be in office if Romney looses again because of religion!
It’s all choice and freedom and people have every right to reject us. I disagree with it, but there will be consequences if the message continues to underestimate this small group of people!
March 29th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
#20, interestingly enough, the LDS church members embrace pro-growth policies, probably mush more than other Christian sects, because of the structure of their church hierarchy and the persecution chuch members experienced years ago.
You would believe that the LDS church would prefer to fight for a more secular nation and not obsess with acceptance from the evangelical right.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
This seems rather ahistoric at best: modern secularist wishful thinking more generally. The Enlightenment itself stemmed from Christianity, which was something of a religion, in case you hadn’t noticed. The idea that the thought of the period could have been “anti-religious” might be true if by “anti-religious” you mean wholly Christian, which was the baseline presumed faith of the entire society and culture in question.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Someone said Mormons are whining!! Are you serious? I can’t believe it! You act like Mormons are like all the other minority groups, marching in the streets and trying to manipulate the American people! Mormons are the last people I see whining! Huckabee is still whining about the primaries and it is the Anti Mormons that are whining, they are just disguising it!!!! There are no Mormon civil rights groups! Romney also strikes me as the least whiney person, while Smuck and his followers strike me as whining and being more petty than anyone!!
March 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
#20, Mormons can compellingly argue that Evangelicals are hypocrites when they use Christian religion as a reason to vote against a Mormon.
Mormons embracing secularism won’t stop wayward Evangelicals voting in a bigoted way. Dialogue between Mormons and Evangelicals on the immorality of religious bigotry may.
Secularism offers no point of contact with those who vote with religious identities. It seals you off and forbids you from having anything to do with those voters at all.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Secularism is a form of atheism.
No, it really isn’t.
This seems rather ahistoric at best: modern secularist wishful thinking more generally. The Enlightenment itself stemmed from Christianity, which was something of a religion, in case you hadn’t noticed. The idea that the thought of the period could have been “anti-religious” might be true if by “anti-religious” you mean wholly Christian, which was the baseline presumed faith of the entire society and culture in question.
To say that the Enlightenment stemmed from Christianity is some sort of Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy world nonsense. It wasn’t anti-religious as much as it was non-religious, which, for the time period, was kind of anti-religious, quite frankly.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Aaron, I meant on this site.
#20, Mormons can compellingly argue that Evangelicals are hypocrites when they use Christian religion as a reason to vote against a Mormon. Mormons embracing secularism won’t stop wayward Evangelicals voting in a bigoted way. Dialogue between Mormons and Evangelicals on the immorality of religious bigotry may. Secularism offers no point of contact with those who vote with religious identities. It seals you off and forbids you from having anything to do with those voters at all.
I don’t care what they can “compellingly” argue, which is all subjective. Don’t try to convince me; I think you’re all nuts. The point is that if you’re going to inject religiosity into voting, then there’s no legitimate basis by which to tell an Evangelical to support a Mormon if he doesn’t like Mormons.
Well, I do want your types out of the party. Hyper-religious, non-capitalist, non-Israel-supporting paleocon types.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
North Korea is an atheist state.
The United States is a secular state.
The Republican party…..?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
[...] once against argues for a godless whatever philosphy Alex teaches. To call it conservatism is an insult to the concept of conservatism and devalues it much as the [...]
March 29th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
As an outsider (Canadian), a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and someone who visits this website on a daily basis, please note that John (post 24) does not speak for all member of the Church. John seems to imply that all Mormons feel the same way as he does (e.g., “…every right to reject us”). I think that regardless of what the views of Evangelicals of Latter-day Saints, many member of the Church will continue to support the party that best promotes their conservative social values. Even with Proposition 8, Latter-day Saint Church leaders stood by the other religious leaders even though the LDS leaders were looked on warily. The Republican party does this the best. The debate about whether Mormons are Christians or non-Christian is a disappointing one, considering the Church’s full name and the fact that in being so inclusive evangelical leaders are driving wedges between those who would support their stances on many social issues, and one that will fuel further debate in the future by those who care about labelling ‘Others’ as different from themselves. Leaders of the LDS Church do not promote one candidate over another (e.g., Church leaders have never said vote for Mitt Romney), and I know from anecdotal experience that many Latter-day Saints do not vote for Romney just because he is a Mormon. I hope that Illinoisguy comes back, for while, like him, I was not pleased with the earlier post of Deace’s comments, we fight for the principles we believe in, regardless of what others may say.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
31, America is only secular in so far as the voters are secular, and is only Christian in so far as the voters are Christians… Its a pluralistic society.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
#30
A Mormon has many obvious legitimate basis by which to ask an Evangelical to support a Mormon candidate if he doesn’t like Mormons. Secularism isn’t one of them.
Alex Knepper:
“Well, I do want your types out of the party. Hyper-religious, non-capitalist, non-Israel-supporting paleocon types.”
Grow up, name-calling is for children.
Weren’t we talking about Mormons who wanted Evangelical votes for their candidates?
If they want those votes they have to dialogue with Evangelicals not become isolated by secularism.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
30. “Well, I do want your types out of the party.” Well considering you oppose the entire top tier of 2012 canidates, its looks like its you side that going to find itself on the outside looking in. I’m struggling to not let that bring a smile to my face.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Alex, you can do better. You have a pre-formed conclusion in search of an argument rather than the other way around. If you’re argument was fact based you could answer my points.
In order to solve this problem for the GOP and the country we have to go back to the beginning: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the intent of the Founders. Otherwise we de facto create a new government.
“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it {the Constitution} a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relier in the critical stages of the revolution.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 37, Jan. 11, 1788
“We are confirmed in the opinion, that the present age would be deficient in their duty to God, their posterity and themselves, if they do not establish an American republic. This is the only form of government we wish to see established; for we can never be willingly subject to any other King than He who, being possessed of infinite wisdom, goodness and rectitude, is alone fit to possess unlimited power.” – Instructions of Malden, MA, for a declaration of independence, May 27, 1776
“The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” – James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, circa 1790
March 29th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
So you believe that polytheism dominated in Europe before the Enlightenment could take place? That’s an interesting conjecture. Please tell us more about how the anti-religious elements behind the Enlightenment found fertile ground in the polytheistic society that we know to have existed before monotheistic Christianity — Christianity specifically — conquered the continent of Europe.
Otherwise: Christianity begat the Enlightenment, which begat modern secularism and its anti-religious, modern liberal Siamese relatives. QED.
Logically, the death of God, or His murder at Nietzschean hands, presumes His prior existence as a condition for the death to occur.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Freedom requires religion.
Freedom requires my religion.
Big difference.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I or anyone I know of said we would not vote for Palin, but if this religious bigotry continues and people like you continue so very very passionately to correct the persecuted rather than correct the bigots and Romney looses again due to it and there is all kinds of mailings and emailings and Preachers on record stirring thousands if not millions to not vote for a Moromon, than yes, I will not vote for this party under any circumstances, AS MUCH AS I LIKE PALIN!! So stop correcting us and unite with us!!! You people should be just as concerned as anyone about this! No religion or people deserve to be rejected like this! This is an issue that should concern everyone!
March 29th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
#31 Kristofer,
I see your point but I cannot completely agree with it. America is a Judeo-Christian nation with a non-religious government. There is no true absence of religion. In fact, many of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morality. The religious influence is implicit, not explicit. A review of our founders’ intent supports my view. They did not want a state established relion, but rather a place where people of different views could come together based on shared values. That is the way our country existed for many years. It is the only way we will survive and I am speaking particularly of the GOP.
Political parties are not religions. One group should not be favored or demonized. Rather, we unite based on common VALUES, not common theology.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
So you believe that polytheism dominated in Europe before the Enlightenment could take place? That’s an interesting conjecture. Please tell us more about how the anti-religious elements behind the Enlightenment found fertile ground in the polytheistic society that we know to have existed before monotheistic Christianity — Christianity specifically — conquered the continent of Europe.
By this ridiculous chain of logic, monarchism begot the Enlightenment.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
#37 typos
you’re = your
relier = relief
#41 typos
relion = religion
March 29th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
#41 C_of_D,
I thought that was the point (Government)? Knepper’s point was focused on the GOP, but it appeared as if the conversation changed to our government.
Certainly many of the values in our society are based on Judeo-Christian nation, although it is changing drastically.
On your last point, I believe you are 100% correct.
We all agree (or should) that something needs to be done about the fact that we are becoming a nation of fatherless families. No matter your political or theological views, we can agree that something must be done about this.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
42, Of course it played a role in it! The enlightenment didn’t wasn’t just a lightening bolt from out of the sky.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
**41 C_of_D,
I thought that was the point (Government)? Knepper’s point was focused on the GOP, but it appeared as if the conversation changed to our government.
**
What’s the difference? Shouldn’t the GOP support our purpose as a nation?
March 29th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Okay, so let’s be even more glib and superficial: Monarchs proclaimed divine heritage and authority.
Christian thinkers had no role? Enlightenment philosophers lept back thousands of years to prehistory?
Do you have even the slightest idea what you’re talking about? Are you capable of any introspective questioning at all? Geez, you seem to have more ready-made answers than there are questions in the known universe.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
canadian boy, I did not imply all Mormons feel this way! That is ridiculous! If that is the case than why did I state McCain won utah, even after Romneys loss, due more to his relgion than any other reason! I did not imply that John! Go back and read! I imply that enough Mormons will flip on the party, particualry if Huckabee is the nominee! Trust em John, I know! Many did not vote for McCain, because they could not vote for the party!
Salt Lake City is 65 percent non Mormon and Utah is 35 to 40 percent non Mormon! Trust me, if Huckabee is the nominee, Utah will go blue! Not if it was Palin, but Arizona, Nevada, Colorado would go blue for sure, because if romney looses again because of bigotry, ENOUGH MORMONS WILL TURN ON THE PARTY! NOW YOU GUYS CAN BE IN DENIAL ABOUT THIS, THAT IS FINE. If you loose even 30 percent of the Mormons who vote Republican you are screwed in the mountain west, I predict it will be a much bigger loss than that, if the bigotry becomes clear again and we all know it will!
March 29th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
The Enlightenment had an anti-clerical undercurrent but was always extremely religious.
Most “Enlightenment Era” figures wrote more on theological topics than on secular ones.
Many Enlightenment types had unorthodox religious views but most had religious piety that was typical of the age.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
#46, of course, but…
The Republican party was founded on a principle of what our nation should become, not what it was (slavery). Of course, one can argue that during the period of legalized slavery, the nation itself (or government) was not supporting the purpose of hope, individual liberty, etc…
March 29th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
#49, Doug, keep in mind that the only literate members of the non-ruling class were theologians and Priests.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I would agree with your last sentence.
That is another reason I want the Party to embrace a larger platform of human rights. The issue is made for us.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Alex. I’m sorry you think that Romey’s support of a pluralistic, tolerant, religious society justifies a vote for Romey is a vote for Satan politics.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Do you have even the slightest idea what you’re talking about? Are you capable of any introspective questioning at all? Geez, you seem to have more ready-made answers than there are questions in the known universe.
Are you incapable of comprehending that thinking can challenge the dominant thought of the age, rather than stem from it?
March 29th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
#52, I agree, and we can fuse the different views and beliefs in the party to achieve this. Socons, FP neocon’s and populists can find synergy on this issue.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Of course, the FP realists and ficons will have to turn a blinde eye.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Like, during the enlightenment?
March 29th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
If a vote for Romney was a vote for Satan, I’d totally vote for Romney.
Where’s Evil Conservative?
SATAN MY MASTER BY BATHORY
Satan, my master — I slit my wrists to drain me of my blood!
Satan, my master — Upside down I turn the cross of God!
Satan, my master — Receive this sacrifice this blood of mine!
Satan, my master –I carve into my rotten flesh your signs!
Satan, my master –Remember me when judgment day is near!
Satan, my master — Take my hand when Armageddon’s here!
March 29th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Like, during the enlightenment?
Er, yes. That’s what I was referring to.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:05 am
#59, I know.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:33 am
What would happen to a free secular nation if its citizens ceased to practice religion? i.e. “freedome without religion”.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:39 am
In my view, ‘Mormon’s’ are Christian. The actual name (for those who’ve never bothered to learn it) is the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. I our view, we are Christian, in the purest sense.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:58 am
John, I am LDS. I could not vote for Palin, and never will. It has nothing to do with My religion, or her religion. It goes much deeper than that. I pretty much don’t want someone who talks one way, and walks the other. IMO, that’s Palin. (Newt, McCain… Too many in the GOP to even count!) I voted for Huntsman, and did not vote for McCain. I don’t even know what religion McCain is, I just know because of his age and the running mate he chose, he was unacceptable to me.
In the LDS church, we are encouraged to be involved in politics. BUT we are also allowed to choose our own way, and not be a lockstep voter. This is why we have Reid and Romney, Mattheson and Flake. LDS men. Good men in their faiths, but very different polticial viewpoints.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:01 am
And John, I do totally agree, if Huckabee is the nominee, the WEST is lost. There are enough LDS voters out there that will flip and either not vote, or vote for the other guy. Palin is a toss up. Many in the west (myself included) do not like her nor trust her. She’s not in the same catageory as Huckabee, but she’s not what I (and other’s I’ve talked to) want in a leader.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Alex 15. you stated “What if someone was to assert that if someone accepted shoddy theology, then it showed a lack of judgment and that we wouldn’t want to trust someone with a deficit of judgment with the presidency?”
And I know you were thinking that accepting “shoddy” theology is a serious character flaw but since you do not accept any theology I don’t think you quite understand. Who is to be judge of all things shoddy? Should you, a non-believer? Should the majority religion judge the minority? Absolutely not. Public discourse needs to be completely neutral on this point. To claim a religion is shoddy and its adherents necessarily mentally deficient by campaign and public pronouncements is wrong.
Religious freedom requires us to respect all faiths. When we show lack or respect, we erode that freedom and violate the rights of faithful.
Faith does not begin with logic, reasoning, mental judgement etc. Those qualities exist separately from faith. Understand that a belief in a God who is unseen does not make you crazy or unfit for office. And the possibility exists that belief can inspire someone to greatness.
Judgment should not be seen as deficient because of a person’s faith. Rational thought can be observed in every aspect of that person’s life and a candidate’s judgment should be readily apparent. Let us observe conduct, compare ideas, and scrutinize political philosophy and not try to determine shoddy religious faith.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:23 am
Lori, you don’t understand: I’m on your side. I’m calling for the abandonment of religious tests in the public square; for the judgment of people on their secular record and merits.