Romney

[UtahDan]

I'm not sure this is an official belief of the church anymore after the tweak of the Book of Mormon title page.

It is confusing. If you read the article you see that when he says ten tribes he is referring to the Book of Mormon historical narrative.

[TripletDaddy]

Why wouldn't it be fair game? It isn't an offensive question. Similarly, a catholic candidate could be asked about his beliefs. fair game, as well. I don't think people are as interested in the catholic candidate's religious beliefs, though.

I say, ask away.

[oxcoug]

Why wouldn't it be fair game? It isn't an offensive question. Similarly, a catholic candidate could be asked about his beliefs. fair game, as well. I don't think people are as interested in the catholic candidate's religious beliefs, though.

I say, ask away.

The fairness is questionable because every religion has more than its share of doctrinal oddity / general weirdness and making any of it a focal point unfairly taints an individual - one of millions of people who was born into a particular culture - with the weirdness of a fact out of its context.

I don't think it's OK to ask a Catholic - "so about transubstantiation - do you really think that wafer is the transformed flesh of Jesus when you put it in your mouth?"

Asking those sorts of questions puts a candidate in a weird position of having to either downplay his/her religious culture's oddities in ways that co-religionists might find problematic, or to defend them in ways that the general population might find problematic - but always without the time or the setting to put the thing in its context.

[YOhio]

Jay Nordlinger gives Romney a little love.

Barry Goldwater once hollered, “Grow up, conservatives!” I sometimes feel the same way. We who are conservative aren’t meant to be 100-percenters. That’s more a Bolshevik trait: “What, you favor a lower grain quota? Up against the wall!” Politics is not for the pure, and ideologues are a nuisance. The American electorate is bigger than National Review Online (unfortunately).

I hope that Republican primary voters will not throw away our chances next year. And I believe that, if Romney is the nominee, virtually everyone right of center will rally ’round.

Before he became our standard-bearer, John McCain was pretty much the media’s favorite Republican. He was Mr. Amnesty, Mr. Global Warming, Mr. Anti-Religious Right, Mr. Reach Across the Aisle. The second he was nominated, he became Attila the Hun to them. He was the obstacle to Obama, the One.

The second Romney is nominated — if he is nominated — he too will be Attila the Hun. And the anti-Mormon stuff will be absolutely ferocious. It will come from the Left and it could come from some quarters of the Right, too. Buckle your chin strap.

[LA Ute]

I don't follow the logic. First he says religion is irrelevant. Then he goes on to dissect Mormonism to explain it's not that crazy, implying religion is relevant.

Also, I don't agree with his first point about how if you're qualified to serve as a soldier, you're qualified to serve as the president. And he wouldn't allow a thief or an alcoholic to represent America as a soldier. Would he also not allow someone with low IQ to serve as soldier? Kind of a dumb, fake-patriotic take which breaks down easily when you look at it.

As I understand him, he thinks religion is almost never relevant to deciding whether or not to vote for a candidate. He wrote earlier about how he decides when religion is relevant:

Freedom of religion does not mean I have to think every religion or irreligion is great! In fact it is demeaning to religion to behave this way. My Catholic friends know that I think the Pope is not the sole head of the Church and my Baptist friends know I think their view of the Eucharist inadequate. They honor me by strongly disagreeing with me. If I thought these ideas had public policies implications that would lead to bad social policy by the state, I would want to examine the views of any Catholic or Baptist politician.

That is not bigotry, just common sense.

So if we assume religious traditions are, at least in part, knowledge traditions, then being wrong about religion does matter. How wrong does one have to be before losing credibility in the public square?

Let me propose a few tests and suggest that Mormonism easily passes all of them.

First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people and by a group willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner. . . .

Second, the group in question should not have religious claims that will naturally lead to horrific, or at least far out, public policy. . . .

Third, the group should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant. No group is perfect, but the Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings.

Do you think religion is relevant to a candidate's qualifications for office? If so, what's your test for deciding when it is relevant?

[oxcoug]

Jay Nordlinger gives Romney a little love.

Nordlinger is dead on.

[TripletDaddy]

The fairness is questionable because every religion has more than its share of doctrinal oddity / general weirdness and making any of it a focal point unfairly taints an individual - one of millions of people who was born into a particular culture - with the weirdness of a fact out of its context.

I don't think it's OK to ask a Catholic - "so about transubstantiation - do you really think that wafer is the transformed flesh of Jesus when you put it in your mouth?"

Asking those sorts of questions puts a candidate in a weird position of having to either downplay his/her religious culture's oddities in ways that co-religionists might find problematic, or to defend them in ways that the general population might find problematic - but always without the time or the setting to put the thing in its context.

I'm not saying that those would be my first questions to ask, I'm just saying that there is nothing unfair about being asked those questions.

It is the height of irony for Mormons to be offended by questions about our beliefs. We are a missionary church and have always sought to evangelize our message. We are asked to stand alone if we must, but to stand for something. We covenant to dedicate all that we have at any cost (even our lives) to build up the Church.

And now Mos call Foul because questions about the Book of Mormon might derail Mitt's shot at a really powerful job?

Which is it? Preach the Gospel or Hide the candle under a bushel?

I'm reminded somewhat of G-Mos interview on Sixty when he is asked about the Church being lead by old dudes. G did not hesitate. He knocked it out the park. Simply said, "yes, isn't it wonderful?" I loved G-Mo. He had panache which is why he was so beloved both in and out of the Iglesia.

Mitt isn't going to dodge the religious questions. They are a central issue in his candidacy. Why not hard charge them? Just answer straight up.

[Goatnapper'96]

I'm not saying that those would be my first questions to ask, I'm just saying that there is nothing unfair about being asked those questions.

It is the height of irony for Mormons to be offended by questions about our beliefs. We are a missionary church and have always sought to evangelize our message. We are asked to stand alone if we must, but to stand for something. We covenant to dedicate all that we have at any cost (even our lives) to build up the Church.

And now Mos call Foul because questions about the Book of Mormon might derail Mitt's shot at a really powerful job?

Which is it? Preach the Gospel or Hide the candle under a bushel?

I'm reminded somewhat of G-Mos interview on Sixty when he is asked about the Church being lead by old dudes. G did not hesitate. He knocked it out the park. Simply said, "yes, isn't it wonderful?" I loved G-Mo. He had panache which is why he was so beloved both in and out of the Iglesia.

Mitt isn't going to dodge the religious questions. They are a central issue in his candidacy. Why not hard charge them? Just answer straight up.

I agree with this. Enough of the whining about what is legitimate and what is not. The answer is simple: When I was a 19 year old kid I bought into the entire LDS cultural/theological explanation that Native South and North Americans were descended from Ancient Israelites. Now with the evidence and scientific developments of the last 40 years I have changed and don't believe that to be fact. Some mormons might view the historiography of the BOM to be an important part of their faith. They are welcome to feel that way, however I do not share that conviction. The benefit I find from the book is how the teachings help me to become a better person and that is how I approach it.

[oxcoug]

I'm not saying that those would be my first questions to ask, I'm just saying that there is nothing unfair about being asked those questions.

It is the height of irony for Mormons to be offended by questions about our beliefs.

I don't think anyone is offended by "questions about our beliefs" - by all means ask us Mos about our beliefs - ask us about the core beliefs that animate our lives and motivations. Just don't rip one piece of our religious narrative out of its context and frame it in a way that makes it look like it's a foundational aspect of a Mo candidate's faith.

To the degree that anyone is "offended" it's not by questions abt Mormonism - it's bc the Constitution is so clear that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." - when media people force candidates to answer questions like these they come close to that line.

[LA Ute]

I agree with this. Enough of the whining about what is legitimate and what is not. The answer is simple: When I was a 19 year old kid I bought into the entire LDS cultural/theological explanation that Native South and North Americans were descended from Ancient Israelites. Now with the evidence and scientific developments of the last 40 years I have changed and don't believe that to be fact. Some mormons might view the historiography of the BOM to be an important part of their faith. They are welcome to feel that way, however I do not share that conviction. The benefit I find from the book is how the teachings help me to become a better person and that is how I approach it.

I think Romney and his campaign want to avoid going down the rabbit hole and becoming spokesmen for the church. Our beliefs are not widely known and take a lot of time to explain (one reason why we have 50,000 missionaries out there). Also, his political opponents would love the distraction. One theme the political consultants for his opponents are pushing is that Mormonism (and thus Romney) are weird. Mitt's getting bogged down into our doctrinal/historical controversies would play right into that. Agree with it or not, that's the campaign's approach and I don't see it changing.

This CNN piece is pretty fair, I think:

The shaping of a candidate: A look at Mitt Romney's faith journey

[RobinFinderson]

I don't think anyone is offended by "questions about our beliefs" - by all means ask us Mos about our beliefs - ask us about the core beliefs that animate our lives and motivations. Just don't rip one piece of our religious narrative out of its context and frame it in a way that makes it look like it's a foundational aspect of a Mo candidate's faith.

To the degree that anyone is "offended" it's not by questions abt Mormonism - it's bc the Constitution is so clear that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." - when media people force candidates to answer questions like these they come close to that line.

They don't come anywhere close to that line. Not by a long mile. That line would be a legal test, not a popularity test. The distinction is vast.

[oxcoug]

They don't come anywhere close to that line. Not by a long mile. That line would be a legal test, not a popularity test. The distinction is vast.

Disagree.

The Constitution is a legal document - but it's also an unofficial guide and reference point for political discourse and culture. When you have religious leaders publicly arguing that Evangelical voters should choose any Christian over a "good person" who is not a Christian a religious test is being imposed that is technically legal but still unacceptably detached from the intent of the document.

[jay santos]

Do you think religion is relevant to a candidate's qualifications for office? If so, what's your test for deciding when it is relevant?

I'm probably the wrong guy to ask. I was more interested in the topic because I misread it and thought it was more of a religion issue than a politics issue, and I'm not the biggest politics guy.

But since you ask. I think evaluating a candidate's qualification for president of the United States would be like evaluating a potential CEO for a company. Imagine you are the sole owner of a company and you are hiring a CEO to run it. Pretty much everything about the guy, including very personal details, would be fair game for evaluation. So yes, religion should be open. I wouldn't need every aspect of the candidate's religion satisfactorily explained. But I would want to know he wasn't a religious extremist and that his views are reasonably rational, comparative to other accepted religions.

[creekster]

Disagree.

The Constitution is a legal document - but it's also an unofficial guide and reference point for political discourse and culture. When you have religious leaders publicly arguing that Evangelical voters should choose any Christian over a "good person" who is not a Christian a religious test is being imposed that is technically legal but still unacceptably detached from the intent of the document.

I agree with RF on this one. What is different between this sort of statement and someone saying we support prop 8 or criminalization of drugs on religious grounds? The governemtn cannot impose a religious test but those voting should be able to decide on any grounds they choose, and religious beliefs are acceptable, IMO, even if they are often (but not always) irrational.

[oxcoug]

I agree with RF on this one. What is different between this sort of statement and someone saying we support prop 8 or criminalization of drugs on religious grounds? The governemtn cannot impose a religious test but those voting should be able to decide on any grounds they choose, and religious beliefs are acceptable, IMO, even if they are often (but not always) irrational.

I understand that POV and don't actually disagree with it - but the question for me is not what criteria individual voters use to vote, but what role the media play in framing decontextualized, isolated aspects of a religion that highlight the apparent "weirdness" of that religion without enabling a meaningful discussion of the rest of it.

When the media zero in on religious idiosyncrasies they create the impression among voters that an individual candidate is somehow accountable for the weirdness or should have to explain it.

I think it's fair for media to highlight anything that factors in a candidate's core identity and is likely to influence his/her decisions. But a Roman Catholic's view of putting Jesus in his/her mouth via transubstantiation or an LDS view of whether or not Jesus set foot on the American continent doesn't really measure up to that standard, IMO.