This article from Slate, Mitt The Mormon might well be one of the most important ones they have published, as it points out very serious potential aspects of a Mitt Romney presidency. It also asks very important questions that Romney seems not to want to answer. How will his religious beliefs affect his presidency?
It is easy to see parallels in Romney's political career with the history of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, as the Mormon Church is officially titled.
The church's marriage policy was originally polygamist. This was far more than a mere cultural or practical matter. This was in fact a very important article of faith, arguably perhaps the most important one of all. Yet, it was conveniently dropped in order to pave the way for Utah to become a state.
That's not all. Up until as relatively recently as 1978, the church was a virulently racist organization which claimed, according to divine revelation, that the dark skin of Africans and their descendants was a curse. Due to this factor, black Mormons were not permitted to hold any high office, or for that matter, any office at all. They could not even be a deacon of the church.
The change in 1978 seems to have coincided with certain civil rights laws having been confirmed in the courts.
If flip-flopping on issues then is a sign of Romney's character, you will at least have to say he has certainly been a faithful Mormon. But is that what we want for a President?
It's one thing to have silly, even arguably ridiculous beliefs about Missouri being the future center of power during the prophesied millennium, or that one should be obliged to always wear underwear inscribed with religious insignia-even in the bath or shower-in order to preserve health and spiritual strength.
It's quite another thing to believe that the laws and edicts of the religious organization of which you have been a member all your adult life (since before 1978 in his case, incidentally) are of greater transcendence and importance than the laws of the land, the top office for which you are aspiring.
The point is made that if John F, Kennedy can openly address questions concerning his catholic faith, and Robert Byrd can address questions as to his past memberhsip in the Ku Klux Klan, why can Mitt Romney not address these relevant similar questions about his Mormon faith? Why does he insist on playing the victim, claiming religious bigotry whenever the question is asked?
The point has even been made that he might have push-polled his own campaign in an effort to dissuade further questions about the matter. If this is true, it is very disturbing indeed.
On the other hand, given his past and recent somewhat Mormonesque flip-flops on important and/or controversial issues, as to his policies as governor of Massachusetts versus his current positions as candidate for President of the United States, an even more disturbing potential emerges.
If he answered the questions, could we believe a fucking word that came out of his mouth, or would he feel any deceptive answer would be justified by faith?
It is easy to see parallels in Romney's political career with the history of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, as the Mormon Church is officially titled.
The church's marriage policy was originally polygamist. This was far more than a mere cultural or practical matter. This was in fact a very important article of faith, arguably perhaps the most important one of all. Yet, it was conveniently dropped in order to pave the way for Utah to become a state.
That's not all. Up until as relatively recently as 1978, the church was a virulently racist organization which claimed, according to divine revelation, that the dark skin of Africans and their descendants was a curse. Due to this factor, black Mormons were not permitted to hold any high office, or for that matter, any office at all. They could not even be a deacon of the church.
The change in 1978 seems to have coincided with certain civil rights laws having been confirmed in the courts.
If flip-flopping on issues then is a sign of Romney's character, you will at least have to say he has certainly been a faithful Mormon. But is that what we want for a President?
It's one thing to have silly, even arguably ridiculous beliefs about Missouri being the future center of power during the prophesied millennium, or that one should be obliged to always wear underwear inscribed with religious insignia-even in the bath or shower-in order to preserve health and spiritual strength.
It's quite another thing to believe that the laws and edicts of the religious organization of which you have been a member all your adult life (since before 1978 in his case, incidentally) are of greater transcendence and importance than the laws of the land, the top office for which you are aspiring.
The point is made that if John F, Kennedy can openly address questions concerning his catholic faith, and Robert Byrd can address questions as to his past memberhsip in the Ku Klux Klan, why can Mitt Romney not address these relevant similar questions about his Mormon faith? Why does he insist on playing the victim, claiming religious bigotry whenever the question is asked?
The point has even been made that he might have push-polled his own campaign in an effort to dissuade further questions about the matter. If this is true, it is very disturbing indeed.
On the other hand, given his past and recent somewhat Mormonesque flip-flops on important and/or controversial issues, as to his policies as governor of Massachusetts versus his current positions as candidate for President of the United States, an even more disturbing potential emerges.
If he answered the questions, could we believe a fucking word that came out of his mouth, or would he feel any deceptive answer would be justified by faith?
3 comments:
Everything about Romney is oppurtunist. He'll take any position to win. His problem is that he's transparent. Hitchens attacks on rteligion are to sell books and get speaker engagements. I think he's trying to get back speaking engagements, he lost bu supporting the war.
Kennedy was influenced by his cardinal, to get involved in Vietnam.
Ya know, Shadowhawk, WuShih, Shak El and I all live in Missouri. Wonder when we're supposed to get ready for this "return?"
Ren-
I didn't know that about Kennedy's cardinal, are you sure that's accurate? If so, it's troubling but not surprising.
Any person who subscribes to s religious philosophy to any degree, will by nature be influenced by their religion in proportion to the degree of their faith. If they say differently, they are probably lying, maybe to themselves.
That is why questions about a candidates religious affiliation are very definitely of interest, and certainly understandable considerations. I'll post more along these lines at some future point.
Fenix-I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that if I were you. On the other hand, if Romney does become president, it would be interesting to measure the degree of migration of Mormons to Missouri. Not just any Mormons either, but probably the most faithful and in some cases fanatical ones might end up your neighbors.
Post a Comment