Evangelical Prof Poses 10 Questions For Mitt Romney

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought Santorum is Catholic, not Evangelical.

That disappoints me even more. But my vow still stands.

[thesometimesaint]

Santorum is as much antiheterosexual as he is antihomosexual.

[Scott Lloyd]

Santorum said that?

That seals it. If Santorum gets the nomination, Obama gets my vote. And Jaybear, it's not because of his Evangelicalism, it's because of his apparent anti-Mormon bigotry.

I haven't been able to find a link to the full newspaper column, but I did find a bit more context, enough that I am retracting my vow.

Here's what I found:

I admire President Bush's religious commitment, but I've never been tempted to become a Methodist. Kennedy's election didn't produce a surge of converts to Catholicism in the 1960s. A Mormon in the White House? Christianity has survived far tougher tests over the last 2,000 years.

Faith still matters in America. Mitt Romney showed it matters to him, too. He should be a viable choice for voters whose faith matters to them."

[JDave]

I noticed the link was provided above, and the full context is:

Romney missed an opportunity to connect with Christian conservatives by citing specific moral teachings that Mormonism has in common with their faith.

Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?

How does a candidate possibly address such concerns?

Assume for the sake of argument that there are valid considerations. Shouldn't we look at everything about the candidate, including positions on the issues that could have even a more dramatic impact on Christianity than his personal faith? What about the candidate's willingness to confront the threat of radical Islam's war against Christianity, or the current efforts to undermine our Judeo-Christian culture and even our religious freedom? Like most voters, my faith matters more than politics, but we are electing someone to the most important political position in the world. I'm more concerned about losing our children to jihadis or a materialistic culture than losing them to Mormonism.

I admire President Bush's religious commitment, but I've never been tempted to become a Methodist. Kennedy's election didn't produce a surge of converts to Catholicism in the 1960s. A Mormon in the White House? Christianity has survived far tougher tests over the last 2,000 years.

Faith still matters in America. Mitt Romney showed it matters to him, too. He should be a viable choice for voters whose faith matters to them.

Seems like he is trying to address a concern that he does not agree with.

[CQUIRK]

If anyone still wonders about the underlying dynamics of this whole thing.

Rick Santorum - "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?" (Santorum's Philadelphia Inquirer column, Dec. 20, 2007)

Now the Huffington Post is picking up on that quote-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/santorum-mormonism-cult-christians-2007_n_1183814.html

[Calm]

I think the quote in isolation comes across different than when it is read in the whole text.

It might have been an underhanded way of getting in a "dangerous cult" dig or he just may have been making a statement of fact about some of the extreme views out there. Since he ends with the below, I read his comment as overall positive as he seems to be discounting the idea of the advantage in proselyting having an LDS in the White House might bring plus affirming it is reasonable for someone concerned about faith to vote for Romney, the only real negative I read out of it is that he doesn't see LDS as Christian, which is not surprising in a Catholic depending on how they view the ruling on LDS baptisms (our baptism is not accepted as some other Christian faiths are accepted by Catholic authority):

I'm more concerned about losing our children to jihadis or a materialistic culture than losing them to Mormonism.

I admire President Bush's religious commitment, but I've never been tempted to become a Methodist. Kennedy's election didn't produce a surge of converts to Catholicism in the 1960s. A Mormon in the White House? Christianity has survived far tougher tests over the last 2,000 years.

Faith still matters in America. Mitt Romney showed it matters to him, too. He should be a viable choice for voters whose faith matters to them.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the quote in isolation comes across different than when it is read in the whole text.

Yes. Starkly different.

Properly understood, I think the man's analysis is about as fair as one could reasonably expect from an observant Catholic.

[Calm]

The only thing that I would be concerned about is that the placement of "dangerous cult" after the missionary comment makes it appear like it might be a separate statement of fact, not connected to what "some" believe, but if so he has changed his position since when the Jeffress controversy was going on, he stated he did not believe that the LDS faith was a cult. And the rest of the commentary doesn't sound like he thinks LDS are dangerous so if he thought the faith was a dangerous cult, it would be in a theological sense of danger to one's soul....which I personally don't have a problem with since if we are a false faith, then we could very well be just that.

Having said that, there are quite a few out there attributing his sudden popularity to anti-mormons who want anyone but a Mormon as the Republican candidate and if the slate article I linked to is right, that even among more mainstream Protestants over 50% would have issues with a Mormon candidate, they may very well be right.

Edited January 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[LeSellers]

I thought Santorum is Catholic, not Evangelical.

The New York Times disagrees with you.

New York Times']We have an unusually large number of candidates, including putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons, a faith that many conservative Christians have been taught is a “cult” and that many others think is just weird. (Huntsman says he is not “overly religious.”) Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are all affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity, which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.

Enjoy,

Lehi

[Jaybear]

It is predatory to insist on yes or no answers when a more nuanced response is required to arrive at the truth. Surely Jaybear, as an attorney must understand this.

Those who deliberately evade yes or no questions which are fairly premised, have an agenda other than imparting truth.

Romney's agenda is to win an election, by not offending voters. Evasion serves his agenda more so than truth.

Santorum said that?

That seals it. If Santorum gets the nomination, Obama gets my vote. And Jaybear, it's not because of his Evangelicalism, it's because of his apparent anti-Mormon bigotry.

Same coin, different side. Evangelicals and Catholics ... for theological reason ... believe that conversion from traditional Christianity to Mormonism leads one AWAY from Christ. What can be more dangerous than an institution which has a missionary force determined to draw "true" Christians away from the light of Christ?

What you call "bigotry" is simply an evangelical/catholic telling people the truth about what he really believes about the Mormon religion.

So would prefer your evangelical politicians to be deliberately evasive when asked about their personal religious beliefs?

If not, then hard to see why you are complaining that EVs want a clear understanding of what Romney really believes.

If it comes out that Romney really believes that EVs are not "true" Christians, no doubt many EV voters would hold it against him, just as you seem to have it out for Santorum and Huckabee.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Jaybear

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

"Those who deliberately evade yes or no questions which are fairly premised, have an agenda other than imparting truth.

Romney's agenda is to win an election, by not offending voters. Evasion serves his agenda more so than truth".

Have you stopped beating your wife? Only a yes or no answer will be accepted.

"Same coin, different side. Evangelicals and Catholics ... for theological reason ... believe that conversion from traditional Christianity to Mormonism leads one AWAY from Christ. What can be more dangerous than an institution which has a missionary force determined to draw "true" Christians away from the light of Christ?

I have plenty of reasons not to vote for Santorum and they have nothing to do with him being Catholic.

"What you call "bigotry" is simply an evangelical/catholic telling people the truth about what he really believes about the Mormon religion".

Never let an opinion get in the way of the facts

[Vance]

Those who deliberately evade yes or no questions which are fairly premised, have an agenda other than imparting truth.

And the problem with these questions is that they are NOT "fairly premised".

[Calm]

The New York Times disagrees with you.

Enjoy,

Lehi

He is Catholic, though he may be of an "evangelical" variation:

http://www.chicagonow.com/being-catholic-really/2012/01/hating-santorum/

An interesting article from the POV of Catholics. Sounds extremely familiar:

It's Okay to Hate Rick Santorum: He's Catholic

Yesterday I found this on my twitter feed: "People will hate Santorum like no other candidate."

The writer is Fr. Dwight Longenecker a former Anglican priest, now a Catholic priest who writes a blog called Standing On My Head.

At first, I was a bit stunned, but when I thought about it, I realized the good Padre was right.

Rick Santorum is unabashedly Catholic and surprisingly, it appears he always has been.

For quite some time now, I've been seeing the bashing of Santorum. He's been called a bigot and a racist. I haven't paid much attention because frankly, I'll wait until there are two candidates: one from each party. But as Santorum gains momentum in the campaign for the Republican nominee for the presidency, so does the hatred towards him because of his beliefs.

We have gotten to a point in today's world, that even though we have free speech we have to be politically correct and walk on egg shells on all things. Heaven forbid we offend anyone ... unless of course, they're Catholic. Then you can be as hate-filled as you want.

However stats show Catholic and Jews as being much more respected these days than in the past so perhaps perception has not caught up with reality yet.

[thesometimesaint]

A slightly different set of ten questions to ask all candidates

From http://www.talk2acti..._for_Candidates

1) Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a "Christian Nation." Do you agree with this statement?

2) Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

3) Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

4) Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?

5) Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

6) Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

7) Should "faith-based" charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?

9) Do you think everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state?

10) What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

Edited January 6, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Vance]

A slightly different set of ten questions to ask all candidates

From http://www.talk2acti..._for_Candidates

1) Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a "Christian Nation." Do you agree with this statement?

2) Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

3) Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

4) Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?

5) Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

6) Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

7) Should "faith-based" charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?

9) Do you think everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state?

10) What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

Those questions are NOT "fairly premised" either.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Vance

[Mansquatch]

Slight derail:

..."the constitution forbids the mixing of politics with religion"...

CFR

Now back on track:

Great answers . I was surprised that there was nothing about being subservient to his Apostle overlords while in office, which I would have answered with section 134.

[Lightbearer]

Those who deliberately evade yes or no questions which are fairly premised, have an agenda other than imparting truth.

Thou sayest... or you should know!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The New York Times disagrees with you.

Enjoy,

Lehi

I am glad when the new your times disagrees with me. That tells me I am on the right side of the issue. However with regards to this issue, well......

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Slight derail:

CFR

I 2nd this

[Mansquatch]

A slightly different set of ten questions to ask all candidates

From http://www.talk2acti..._for_Candidates

1) Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a "Christian Nation." Do you agree with this statement?

Depends on definition and usage. The nation was definitely founded on Christian principles and thus, all faiths are welcome and protected here.

2) Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

Yes

3) Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

I don't see any harm in it. Even after growing up Mormon in the Bible belt. “I am no bigot, I will pray with any man”

4) Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?

No. But it should be allowed to be discussed in a free exchange of ideas in class.

5) Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

When they are used for depriving someone of life without due process, yes.

6) Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

Yes but allow my beliefs to remain without legal punishment

7) Should "faith-based" charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

No government funding of charities.

8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?

Yes

9) Do you think everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state?

Yes but without the distortion of the term that exists in today's society.

10) What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

Both

Answers should be green above

[BCSpace]

There is nothing wrong with such tests as long as they are not part of civil regulations and law. A person's religion or lack thereof shapes a person's values and is therefore a valid concern of any voter. The key is to be properly and well informed about the religion in question. Of course a candidate is equally within his rights to refuse to take the test.

Maybe I'm just a bit cynical, but I don't have very high hopes that evangelicals will be properly or well informed enough about the Mormon faith. Most of them will probably just accept whatever their pastors tell them about Mormonism.

They do indeed have their agency and they surely will be judged according to how they used it, just like everyone else..

[zerinus]

Slight derail:

..."the constitution forbids the mixing of politics with religion"...

CFR

I 2nd this

'Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religion in the Constitution.' Source.

[Mansquatch]

'Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religion in the Constitution.' Source.

That prohibits a test and doesn't forbid the mixing of politics and religion. Politics and religion can be as intermingled as they like, as long as a citizen is not required to follow a certain religion or have a level of knowledge of religion in order to run for office.

[zerinus]

Here is another simpel request for somoene who disagrees. There is a website out there called EvangelicalsforMitt.com. Is there a website set up by Mormons for Mormons who support Perry or Bachman or even Santorum?

There is no vitriolic "anti-Evangelical" talk coming form Mormons either, as the reverse is the case from the Evs. There is no "Mormon proff posing 10 question to Santorum" for example, as there is "Evangelical proff posing 10 question to Mitt Romney". Those Evs who created the website "EvangelicalsforMitt.com" were no doubt embarrassed by the actions of their fellow Evangelicals. Mormons don't need to do that because there are no Mormons embarrassing their fellow Mormons with that kind of cheap rhetoric.

[zerinus]

That prohibits a test and doesn't forbid the mixing of politics and religion. Politics and religion can be as intermingled as they like, as long as a citizen is not required to follow a certain religion or have a level of knowledge of religion in order to run for office.

That is what I meant by mixing politics and religion. Those "Ten Questions" are effectively a religious test for Romney running for political office, which is forbidden under the Constitution of the United States. That is why I believe that the answer I gave is the most correct answer that Romney (or any other political candidate) could give to such questions.

Edited January 6, 2012 by zerinus