Evangelical Prof Poses 10 Questions For Mitt Romney

[LeSellers]

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.

No, they're not.

A "religious test" is requiring a person to (at least pretend) to adhere to a specific religion (denomination) or creed before the government allows him to hold an office or public trust.

What individual voters do, what any non-governmental organization may do is wholly outside the purview of the Constitution. The Document is a restriction on the powers of the state (not "the states") and allows it only those powers (not "rights") it lists. No power not listed, like having a specific religion or not adhering to another, was delegated to the federal government by the states when they created the federation. The fact that the federal government has usurped many powers not listed is not sufficient reason to ignore the fundamental fact that the Constitution is an enabling document with severe restrictions, by default, on the central government. Its provisions have no effect on the individual's rights unless expressly identified (and only one crime is: treason).

Lehi

[zerinus]

No, they're not.

I think that they are.

[Mansquatch]

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.

You said: "Since my role as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States is purely political (and the constitution forbids the mixing of politics with religion), I cannot answer any of your religious questions." There is no prohibition of answering a religious question or any question you like by someone running for office so the explanation of why you couldn't answer is not valid. Everyone has their own personal "religious test" whether they want to admit it or not. And this Evangelical Prof has every right to pose whatever questions he likes. It is ignorant, annoying and not without agenda that he must single out a Mormon. Article six, in its last section, is talking about the swearing in of officers and how they can either take a religious oath or simply affirm, but there is no requirement either way. It does not "forbid the mixing of politics with religion"

[LeSellers]

I think that they are.

Based on what. pray tell?

"A religious test" is a specific term with a specific meaning. Nothing in your position has any basis in that meaning.

Lehi

[Jaybear]

Based on what. pray tell?

"A religious test" is a specific term with a specific meaning. Nothing in your position has any basis in that meaning.

Lehi

Absolutely agreed. People are free to vote for who they want, for whatever reason, or for no reason at all.

If Mitt refuses to answer the questions voters can hold it against him.

If he answers the question, they can hold it against him.

I am sure there are some people who didn't vote for Obama, because they think he is a muslm, or because he was black.

Some people didn't vote for McCain, because he was old.

Some people won't vote for a women.

Some people wouldn't vote for a gay or atheist candidate.

Who ever came up with the idea of letting people vote in private? What a crazy idea.

[zerinus]

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.

Bump for Jaybear.

[zerinus]

Based on what. pray tell?

It breaks the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

[LeSellers]

It breaks the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

No, it does not.

The "spirit of the law" is to restrict the power of government, not the power of the individual. Quite the contrary: the people, as individuals and as voluntary organizations, can and do have all the natural rights their Creator endowed them with, including the right to be as bigoted and biased as they please. Time will always (however lengthy the process) weed out stupidity.

Lehi

[zerinus]

No, it does not.

Yes it does.

[selek1]

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?

The problem with this set of questions is that it is every bit as ideologically drive, and every bit as much a "gotcha" as those posted in the OP.

Both sets of questions are attempts to twist the candidates' arms in support of a particular ideological bent and agenda.

Niether is particularly honest in that regard.

[Vance]

People are indeed free to allow their religious bigotry to inform their vote. Just as others are free to point out said bigotry for what it is, bigotry.

Bigots are free to be bigots. It is a free country, even for, or especially for, them.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Giving explanatory content with one's responses is not evading questions. One who formulates such "fairly premised" questions has no justifiable reason for resisting explanatory content.

Nothing makes me mistrust the motives or doubt the good will of somebody more readily than when he puts questions to me and then tries to badger me into giving one-word answers. I won't put up with it.

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

Smac, in the OP, gave good examples of possible answers that are concise and at the same time accurate and responsive. They are not prone to conveying or sustaining a false impression, unlike the one-word answers you insist on.

Same coin, different side. Evangelicals and Catholics ... [snip]

Hello? I retracted my comment after I had found a link to Santorum's Philadelphia Enquirer column and read the quote in context.

Try to keep up, Jaybear.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Sevenbak]

I read the whole column too, and I don't sense Santorum changing his tune. There were several little subtle digs at Romney Mormonism, and his summary statement by itself shows me he knows exactly what he is doing (and did in Iowa), with no sense of remorse for his actions. If he's as innocent in his motives he sure isn't telling his supporters that they can trust a Mormon like he did in his purported statement. He's milking every bit of the controversy to his advantage. Not only milking it, his team is organizing anti Mormonism on a large scale. He's either lying outright or completely two faced.

He goes down even further in my book.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Sevenbak

[thesometimesaint]

celek1:

I haven't given my answers to the questions. But will do so now.

1. We are not nor have we ever been a Christian nation. The Founders deliberately formed a secular state while allowing all to believe what they choose.

2. Houses of worship should not be involved in partician politics at all. The individual people in them are free to vote for whomever they want.

3. No. Public schools should remain public, and not involve themselves in sectarian practices. Religious schools can of course require belief for attendence

4. Creationism is a religious belief and has no place in the public schools.

5. As there are certain professions that allowing individuals to force their beliefs on others would be detriment to someone elses health, safety. I would not allow such.

6. While I personally oppose SSM. I believe in letting others believe as they want.

7. No. Discrimination is public policy is wrong.

8. Yes.

9. Yes. The same phiosophy that will discriminate against my religion can and will be used to discriminate against others.

10. Use the best science available.

Edited January 7, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

celek1:

I haven't given my answers to the questions. But will do so now.

I agree with Selek, the questions seem agenda-driven, especially in light of the answers you give.

But, unlike Jaybear, at least you are not insisting on one-word answers.

[thesometimesaint]

Only in the sense that all questions on matters of belief/practice are agenda driven.

[Jaybear]

Giving explanatory content with one's responses is not evading questions.

I never said or implied that "giving explanatory content with one's response" is evading the question.

I suggest you go back and read what I wrote.

The response is evasive if one can't determine from the "explanatory" content whether the answer the to question was yes or no.

I don't consider it evasive to say: "Yes, because .....".

One who formulates such "fairly premised" questions has no justifiable reason for resisting explanatory content.

If one asks "why" they are specifically requesting an explanation.

If one asks "do" they are not.

Nothing makes me mistrust the motives or doubt the good will of somebody more readily than when he puts questions to me and then tries to badger me into giving one-word answers. I won't put up with it.

Yeah, how dare any want to know what a politician really believes, when they more that willing to tell you what they think you want to hear.

Smac, in the OP, gave good examples of possible answers that are concise and at the same time accurate and responsive. They are not prone to conveying or sustaining a false impression, unlike the one-word answers you insist on.

He is an example of an "answer" that was neither concise nor responsive.

3. The official teaching of the LDS Church is that the Mormon Church is “the one and only true church on earth.” Do you also believe that all non-denominational and denominational churches are not true churches?

SMAC: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints advances truth claims which, at some point, become exclusivistic. The same can be said of Roman Catholicism, Methodism, Presbyterianism and most other Christian groups and other religions as well. However, the first President of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, readily acknowledged that the LDS Church does not have a monopoly on truth, and that members of the LDS Church can and should learn from people not of their faith.

Not responsive or germane to the question. No one, let alone the person who asked the question, is under the false impression that Mormons believe that the LDS Church has a "monopoly on truth."

Now, if he had asked does the LDS Church claim to have a monopoly on truth, it would have been a responsive answer.

SMAC: Joseph Smith also taught the importance of reaching out to defend the rights of those not of our faith.

Good for him, but again not responsive or germane.

SMAC: These sentiments have been recently emphasized by former President Gordon B. Hinckley, who stated:

"We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We can and do work with those of other religions in the defense of those values which have made our civilization great and our society distinctive.

Very nice sentiment, but again, not response or germane.

You and I obviously have a different understanding of what the words "responsive" and "evasive" means.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

What a person believes is irrelevent to public service.

Here is religious preferences of the Presidents of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Baptist

• Warren Harding
  
• Harry Truman
  
• Jimmy Carter (Southern Baptist)
  
• Bill Clinton (Southern Baptist)
  

Congregationalist

• Calvin Coolidge
  
• John Adams (later Unitarian)
  

Disciples of Christ

• James Garfield
  
• Lyndon Johnson
  
• Ronald Reagan (also Presbyterian)
  

Dutch Reformed

• Martin Van Buren
  
• Theodore Roosevelt
  

Episcopalian

• George Washington
  
• James Madison
  
• James Monroe
  
• William Henry Harrison
  
• John Tyler
  
• Zachary Taylor
  
• Franklin Pierce
  
• Chester A. Arthur
  
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
  
• Gerald Ford
  
• George H. W. Bush
  
• George W. Bush (later Methodist)
  

Methodist

• James Polk (originally Presbyterian)
  
• Ulysses Grant (allegedly; his theology is unknown)
  
• William McKinley
  
• George W. Bush (originally Episcopalian)
  

Presbyterian

• Andrew Jackson
  
• James Polk (later Methodist)
  
• James Buchanan
  
• Grover Cleveland
  
• Benjamin Harrison
  
• Woodrow Wilson
  
• Dwight D. Eisenhower
  
• Ronald Reagan (also Disciples of Christ)
  

Quaker

• Herbert Hoover
  
• Richard Nixon
  

Roman Catholic

• John F. Kennedy
  

Unitarian

• John Adams
  
• John Quincy Adams
  
• Millard Fillmore
  
• William Howard Taft
  

United Church of Christ

• Barack Obama (later no affiliation)
  

[Pahoran]

Interesting that most of you seem to have an aversion to answering yes or no questions about your personal beliefs.

You find it surprising that people don't wish to be interrogated with leading questions? Okay.

I presume that comes from your desire that mormons be allowed to fit in?

Yes, you are good at presuming.

My answers would be:

Completely irrelevant, since you are not a believing Latter-day Saint.

Great questions, for the most part. I am guessing that most evangelicals would give you a straight answer, without the dodge that most of you demonstrate.

As you perfectly well know, the only "dodge" in view is the set of manipulative leading questions Jackson arrogantly assumes LDS candidates ought to be subjected to.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Wants2know]

I think the "real" question behind the curiousities of Romney and faith has to do with following a prophet. That idea scares people. It makes them wonder who will really run the country. Maybe it would be helpful for the prophet to be seen more publicly, like President Hinkley did. Take some of the "weirdness" factor out of the picture.

[thesometimesaint]

Just like the Pope did for Kennedy?

[Vance]

According to the American political tradition, there are essential questions by which all office seekers are qualified, regardless of their faith journey or history. The first is: Does the candidate subscribe completely to our constitutional structure, including freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths — or no faith? A second question for the thoughtful voter is related to and flows from the first: Will the candidate subscribe, without any “mental hesitation or purpose of evasion,” to the oath to protect and defend America’s Constitution? If the answers to those closely connected questions are yes, then voters should proceed to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidate’s qualifications, platform and policy positions — not the candidate’s membership (or lack thereof) in a particular faith community.

http://www.washingto...WBkP_story.html

These are the relevant questions.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Vance

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

What a person believes is irrelevent to public service.

Here is religious preferences of the Presidents of the US.

Like it or not, what a candidate believes is relevant to the voters.

While Mormons complain loudly that its not fair for nonMormons to take religion into account when considering a Mormon candidate, they have yet to show that Mormons practice what they preach.

When, for example, was the last time a non Mormon was elected to statewide office in Utah?

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

If we are to vote only for those politicans, of ANY Religion, whom actually practice what their religion preaches then the list of candidates could easily fit on the back of a postage stamp, in LARGE TYPE.

Again it makes no difference to me what, if any, religion a seeker of governmental office has.

Show me your ideas about goverrnance.

Being that I haven't been in Utah in over 30 years it is irelevent to me what religious preference any elected Utahn has.

In California where I live we have LDS in elected Local, State wide and Nation wide offices, amoung many whom are not LDS, or whom I have no idea what their religious preference is.

Rockey Anderson, former mayor of SLC, is running for POTUS on the Justice Party ticket. He is not LDS, as far as I know. He doesn't stand a snowballs chance in a hot oven of actually being elected. But I like his platform.

Edited January 9, 2012 by thesometimesaint