Florida Clergyman Asks Romney To Denounce His Religion

[jcake]

So, how do you think Romney should respond to this request?

Should he bring up the history of other religions who've been very racist in the past, but aren't any longer? Should he acknowledge the racism of some of the LDS people, in the past as well as now, and note that this would be the case for most religions? Should he not respond at all?

Ideas?

[Jeff K.]

No, that would simply drag him into the pit. All religions have parts of their history we can find disagreement with today. The question should be, what is the church doing now, rather than what was the church doing then. Does he claim the church is biased and racist now? Does he claim perhaps that we as a church do no good works in Africa? All churches bear some stains in their history that cannot be reconciled in a soundbite. Perhaps the reverend could show more Christian charity and less political maneuvering.

[Avatar4321]

Affirm his faith even more.

[blackstrap]

" After you,reverend."

[Buzzard]

BTW, the good reverend is a big time Santorum supporter. I think he was his campaign co-chair in FL. So not so out of the blue as it would seem.

[Calm]

" After you,reverend."

Actually, not a bad idea considering the man opposed the building of a mosque on the grounds it was intended to be a recruitment center for terrorists (according to a news article posted on his own website).

Personally I think he should just ignore it though. It is so inappropriate for anyone to dictate to another what their religion should be.

[thesometimesaint]

Romney should give it all the attention it deserves. As for the good "reverend" he should take Santorums "science" to heart and lock himself in a sealed room filled with CO2. "The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is," he said.

[Daniel Peterson]

I feel really, really strongly about this one.

To which you naturally respond "So what?" Well, I'm a blogger now. And it's the nature of that beast to emote and opine publicly, and to imagine that others care.

Here's my blog entry on the topic, entitled "Santorum Should Publicly Renounce Anti-Mormonism."

Just in case you're interested, it features a link by which you can write to the Santorum campaign.

[blueadept]

Santorum's Catholic faith has been under constant fire and he has stood firm. Making any kind of either positive or negative statement in regards to Romney's faith is a no-win scenario for him at this point. If Gingrich actually dropped out of the race, then I don't see it hurting him

[Sky]

I have a hard time understanding how this clergyman can not see the inherent bigotry in his request. And why more people are not calling him out on it.

If I were Romney, I would most likely ignore him. Don't give that man any more attention or add any more fuel to the fire. The persistence of the concern over Romney's religion isn't going to go away with certain people no matter what he says.

[KevinG]

Santorum could easily ask his supporters to respect Romney as he as asked to be respected. It wouldn't stop others from being knuckleheads but it would distance him from the worst of the behavior.

[Jeff K.]

Santorums silence speaks to his character, unless of course he renounces all LDS support in the general election. Then at least he will be consistent.

[thesometimesaint]

KevinG:

Don't hold your breath till that happens. It works to Santorums favor to keep the knuckleheads close. Satorums strategy is to have a brokered convention, Gingrich can't win it, Ron Paul can't win it. Santorum scares the heck out of most people. Romney is at his best when he's a moderate, but primaries/caucuses are about appealing to your base. It's all about delegate count from now on.

[Daniel Peterson]

Santorum's Catholic faith has been under constant fire and he has stood firm.

That's fine.

If anybody out there demanded that Santorum renounce his Catholic faith in order to be acceptable for the presidency, I would be very vocal in criticizing and rejecting that demand.

I have zero sympathy for anti-Catholicism.

Making any kind of either positive or negative statement in regards to Romney's faith is a no-win scenario for him at this point.

He doesn't need to make a statement about Romney's faith as such, whether pro or con.

He needs to clearly say that Romney's faith should not be an issue in the election any more than his own faith should be, and that there is no place in American politics for demands that a political candidate renounce his or her religious beliefs. And he needs to distance himself from O'Neal Dozier, the honorary chairman of his Florida campaign, whose support he has been trumpeting within the past two or three days.

[blueadept]

Santorum and Gingrich are pulling from the same source of conservative voters and the only chance either one has is if one of them drops out. Thus the reason I don't believe it's in Santorum's interest to bring up the subject unless Gingrich drops. The only group that would approve of a positive statement would be LDS and I don't believe they will be switching their votes any time too soon but more would run to Gingrich if he did say anything positive on this IMHO. His only course is to shut up unless Gingrich drops. That's why it's a no-win scenario for doing the right thing. He would lose votes and not gain any.

I disagree that we will have a brokered convention if both Gingrich and Santorum stays in. If they both stay in, Romney gets the nomination IMO. The only chance for a brokered convention is if one drops which I do not foresee.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thus the reason I don't believe it's in Santorum's interest to bring up the subject unless Gingrich drops.

Whether it would or wouldn't be in Santorum's interest to renounce religious bigotry is a matter of complete indifference to me.

It would be right.

[Calm]

That's why it's a no-win scenario for doing the right thing.

It would be right.

Unfortunately it seems that doing the right thing is not the first priority of many (most?) politicians.

[blueadept]

Unfortunately it seems that doing the right thing is not the first priority of many (most?) politicians.

Agreed. Santorum is trying to get the EV vote. I would think he would have no issues in saying something if Gingrich dropped but that's just speculation by me.

[Zakuska]

How quickly the world forgets..

.

Adoption by Protestant groups

The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for the practice. In fact, most 19th and early 20th century Southern Baptist congregations in the southern United States taught that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites.[15]

The doctrine was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the U.S. and Europe. The majority of Christian Churches in the world, the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic Diocese in the Southern United States did adopt a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer the Sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishioners. This policy was not based on a Curse of Cain teaching, but was justified by any possible perceptions of having slaves rule over their masters. However, this was not approved of by the Pope or any papal teaching.[16]

Baptists officially taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services after the 1970s and 1980s when many official policies were changed. In fact, it was not until 1995 that the Southern Baptist Convention officially renounced its "racist roots."[17]

Pentecostals In the earliest years of the Pentecostal revivals, notably Azusa Street in Los Angeles, 1906-09 the mixing of the races was encouraged, and Jim Crow laws were defied. This was radical and broke new ground. It continued until 1924 when an official new Pentecostal denomination emerged, but many Pentecostal groups continued to allow mixing of the races in their services. There had been an earlier tradition of encouraging the races to mix in revival meetings going back to the Cane Ridge revival of 1801, and Methodist preachers often continued this approach.(See Robert S. Ellwood Jr. One Way: The Jesus movement and its meaning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.) 1973, pg. 40-42).

Many Protestant groups in America had supported the notion that black slavery, oppression, and African colonization was the result of God's curse on people with black skin or people of African descent through Cain[citation needed] or through the curse of Ham, and some churches practiced racial segregation as late as the 1990s[citation needed]. Today, however, official acceptance and practice of the doctrine among "Protestant" organizations is limited almost exclusively to churches connected to white supremacy, such as the Aryan World Church and the New Christian Crusade Church.

http://en.wikipedia....nd_mark_of_Cain

It was the curse/mark of Cain doctrine that split the Baptist church in two, and many of the early LDS leaders were steaped in these doctrines being converted from these very congregations. Perhaps the good Reverend would like to comment on why his church held similar racist beleifs and call them to repentance as well? Will he denounce his religion?

I won't hold my breath.

[Calm]

Perhaps the good Reverend would like to comment on why his church held similar racist beleifs and call them to repentance as well?

I don't think he's baptist. From his church's website, he looks like he started his own church. And as far as I can tell it does not claim allegiance with any other Christian denomination.

I do not know anything about any other pastors demanding the same.

[Zakuska]

I don't think he's baptist. From his church's website, he looks like he started his own church. And as far as I can tell it does not claim allegiance with any other Christian denomination.

I do not know anything about any other pastors demanding the same.

Rev. Dozier earned a Doctor of Jurisprudence Law Degree from the John Marshall Law School in Atlanta, Georgia. He attended the Morehouse School of Religion Seminary in Atlanta, Georgia, and has been a licensed minister of the gospel since 1975. In 1983, he was ordained as a Baptist Minister. In 1985, Rev. O’Neal Dozier and his wife Leketia founded The Worldwide Christian Center now located in Pompano Beach, Florida, where he continues to serve as Senior Pastor.

You would think that an ordained Baptist minister would be aware of the racist past that caused a schism in his own church.

http://www.twwcc.org...pastors-corner/

Now will he denounce his own religion? Im still not holding my breath.

[Calm]

Looks like I didn't read closely enough.

[The Nehor]

Well, the jig is up. The LDS Church had a good run but this obscure graduate of a tier 3 law school quasi-baptist minister has called us out. I for one plan to renounce my faith or this guy might think bad things about me. I urge all to follow me. It is the only course left to us.