Scary because you’re setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is correct for religous belief for others. So, the question I have for you is who died and made you God?
I personally know a few protestants who happen to believe in transubstantiation and their church’s position is that such a belief is up to the individual. They are not subject to excommunication for holding or expressing such a belief.
The OP is attempting to define a religious test for the office of President. Seems to me that the Founding Fathers were not impressed with that. I refer you to the Constitution itself.
ITR Champion I don’t want to mind-read here, so would you think similar questions to a Catholic candidate regarding the child molestation scandals would be appropriate? We’ve got a whole thread in the BBQ Pit detailing a bunch of hideous statements from various Catholic officials. Would you be okay with asking each Catholic pol if he agreed with each specific statement (that would be quite a news conference)?
I’m not sure I understand why you are asking about what Romney believed in 1978. I thought you Christians were all about forgiveness. Even if turns out Romney was a rabid racist back then, shouldn’t you be concerned with what his viewpoints are today? Couldn’t you get a better perception of whether or not he is a racist today by looking at his statements and behavior for the past five or ten years, rather than what he was doing 30 years ago?
While I think churches should definitely be open about their books, I don’t see how LDS is alone among “major churches” by keeping its books closed. Unless Benny Hinn and all those other televangelists have started opening their books while I wasn’t looking, it seems to be a fairly standard practice in this country. I think if evidence is coming to light about nefarious spending by the LDS, that would be fair to ask about, but the article you linked to doesn’t have any of that. If it’s true that LDS would rather spend it’s money on land and pretty buildings than on the poor, so what? It wouldn’t make me want to join their church, but as long as they aren’t fraudulently misrepresenting what they are spending their money on, that isn’t a crime.
As for the ceremonies, since I don’t know anything about them, I’ll refrain from comment. But I will note that I have people who self-identify as Christians routinely tell me that I’m in league with the Devil because I’m a Hindu or because I’m gay. Not every day or anything, but it’s routine enough that I’m not shocked by it anymore.
The Constitution forbids the government from setting a religious test for public office. Individuals can determine who to vote for by any standard they please.
Now, if the GOP race had not been settled by the time of the Indiana primary in 2008, I’d have been torn between Romney & Huckabee. I wouldn’t be surprised if I face the same decision in 2012. That said, religiously, I sure as heck am closer to H than R, but I think R has more economic savvy & that’ll be a BIG factor in deciding my vote- moreso than the nature of Deity.
I know what the constitution was referring to. My point is that since the constitution prohibits a religious test, then the founding fathers considered the candidate’s religious beliefes to be irrelevant. Someone who then bangs the drum of “his religion is b-a-a-a-d/I don’t l-i-i-ike his religion” is just tarring himself with the brush of bigotry at best, at worst playing on the bigotry of members of the electorate.
No, it means they felt those currently in power should not be allowed to overrule the decision of the people whether a candidate’s religious beliefs are relevant or not.
It is not inherently bigoted to judge people by their thoughts and actions, even if those thoughts and actions are motivated by a belief in certain fictional characters.
I don’t understand the assumed hypocrisy you’re trying to point out here. I’m afraid I was not a regular contributor to the Obama threads you’re referring to, but i’d guess that you’re saying in them, posters by and large were willing to give Obama himself the benefit of the doubt and claim that he should not be held to account for all the actions of a priest of his religion or his religion in general - rather, his politics. Here, so far as I can tell, the boot is on the same foot; by and large, posters are saying that Romney, too, should not be judged by priests of his religion or his religion itself, and that it is his politics that should be the matter of contention.
In case anyone is wondering, when Evangelicals and Fundamentalists refer to someone as Christian, they mean in the sense of a Born Again Christian who has experienced an individual conversion and not merely someone who purports to follow Christ. As being born again is not part of Catholic theology, in the minds of many E’s and F’s a Catholic cannot be Christian.
Nope. He is still mired in the Rev, Wright non-controversy. SHODANs claws don’t retract. It was a lot of desperate noise about nothing.
Perhaps he can blame Obama for the priests abusing altarboys and covering it up. He must be held responsible.
The Mormons are a new religion. The warts of their founder have not been erased by time . He was a con-man and a shyster . The whole religion is founded on a base of mud . I do not see how anyone could be a believer.When I meet a person who tells me they are Mormons. I think “you gotta be kidding me. What’s wrong with you”.
I thought John 1:1 is to be taken as a Trinitarian description:
‘The Word’ is some kind of Logos or godhead or what have you, the ‘with’ is a ghost or something, and then there is the God Itself… obviously I am fuzzy on this and someone will come along and clear it up for all of us. I’m no bible beater, but I thought the Trinity was bible-based
As for the OP, I would generally try to look at a politician’s record and behavior before their religious beliefs. In the case of Mormonism however, here we have a religion which promotes an, um, ‘alternative’ version of North American history. Do we want to give so much power to a guy who may or may not accept the best accounts of actual history? Dunno. Romney actually seemed like the coolest of all the pubbies in '08 in terms of coming across as ‘executive material’. I’d listen and give him a chance, but in the end would vote Obama.
I think more people should be concerned about politicians beliefs.
If someone believes we don’t have to protect/clean up the environment because Zombie Jesus will be back any day know, I want to know.
If someone lets the positions of the stars decide policy, I want to know.
If someone believes the end of days are upon us and are ready for it to get started, I want to know.
I don’t want people like this in any position of authority in this secular land. Unfortunately, to many people do or at least don’t care enough to question them.
It’s not like mainstream Christianity accepts the “best accounts of actual history”. Again; if you want to condemn a politician for following an irrational religion, then you need to condemn all religious politicians, because all religions are irrational. There’s little to choose from between them in terms of rationality.
NO i would strongly disagree with you on that point. Up until the age of 31 Mitt Romney belonged to a church which said that I was a descendant of cain and unworthy of priesthood due to my inferior status. That’s not say at age of 10 or so Mitt Romney was a grown man when he chose to affliate or to continue affliating himself with his church and this belief.
Lawrence O’Donnell has made this similiar point Romney & Me | HuffPost Latest News
BTW nice way to duck that first question Grunman… i guess if you ignore it it never happened eh??
Would the OP ask a Catholic why he associates with a church that still to this day considers women inferior-- ie, incapable of being priests? Now, I know that “priest” has a different meaning in Catholicism and Mormonism, but it’s still an important discriminating action.
OTOH, perhaps we should ask these questions of Harry Reid. He actually converted to Mormonism while it was actively discriminating against Blacks.
Geographically, maybe. But intellectually, our government and history is much more closely tied into that of Europe during the time period addressed (first few centuries BC).
Doesn’t it make more sense to say that the record they bear is the same rather than all 3 enumerated things (Hi Opal!) are the same? I put my school transcript in my backpack, on my fridge and I emailed it to myself. Does this make my backpack, fridge and email the same thing?
The trinity doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Jesus is in the garden, praying to… himself? There was some divine cockblock going on that prevented the All-Knowing, All-Seeing from knowing and seeing? [River Tam]Doesn’t… make… sense.[/River Tam] That was one thing I always admired about the Mormons. They have God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost as separate individual beings. Makes that whole praying thing work out a lot better.
As for Romney, is he a presidential candidate or is he America’s Next Top Mormon? Is there some factual basis to assume that the idiosyncrasies of the Mormon faith are somehow going to influence his policies if he becomes President? And aren’t there some checks and balances on this type of thing anyhow? Something about separation of church and state?
