Apparently, Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Who knew?
Many in the Republican institution seem pleased with Romney's attempt to explain/defend his faith; namely, boring old guys like Fred Barnes and people like Hugh Hewitt, who actually thinks Mitt Romney is a "Reagan-like communicator."
In reality, the guy who hit the nail on the head is David Frum:
If this speech is an attempt to placate Christmas-and-Easter Christians, well, they don't place much of an emphasis on faith to begin with when evaluating candidates. Their support of Romney, or lack thereof, hinges on issues not related to faith.
But to evangelicals and to those for whose Christian faith is a defining characteristic of their political identity, the fact remains that you'll be hard pressed to find any Christian leader who considers the Mormon faith as something under the Christian umbrella.
That isn't a one-way street, either. It was Joseph Smith himself who said that other Christian denominations were "all wrong ... all their creeds were an admonition in his sight, and that those professors were all corrupt."
But now, all of a sudden, Romney wants to give a speech about his faith that is designed to do nothing other than insulate himself from questions about that very faith. In a speech that was supposed to be so clear and defining, it used the word "Mormon" exactly once and the word "Christian" exactly once.
I have no problems with Mormonism, or with Mormons. What people choose to believe is their own personal prerogative, and it is not my place to judge that. I don't think that being Mormon disqualifies you from being President.
But to me, this speech was just another attempt by Mitt Romney to engage in doublespeak. Mitt Romney does not want to explain his faith, he wants to obfuscate it. His speech was nothing more than a shallow attempt to pander to evangelicals by glossing over the substantial differences in doctrine and belief between Mormonism and other Christian faiths. Like, for instance, Romney's belief that God had a wife. Or that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.
We'll see how voters in Iowa and other early states respond to this speech in the next week. My guess is that Romney's speech will create more questions among its target audience than it answered.
Many in the Republican institution seem pleased with Romney's attempt to explain/defend his faith; namely, boring old guys like Fred Barnes and people like Hugh Hewitt, who actually thinks Mitt Romney is a "Reagan-like communicator."
In reality, the guy who hit the nail on the head is David Frum:
To be blunt, Romney is saying:
It is legitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the son of God?"
But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?"
It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions, and I think on reflection that the audiences to whom Romney is trying to appeal will also fail to see such a difference. Once Romney answered any question about the content of his religious faith, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith. This speech for all its eloquence will not stanch the flow of such questions.
If this speech is an attempt to placate Christmas-and-Easter Christians, well, they don't place much of an emphasis on faith to begin with when evaluating candidates. Their support of Romney, or lack thereof, hinges on issues not related to faith.
But to evangelicals and to those for whose Christian faith is a defining characteristic of their political identity, the fact remains that you'll be hard pressed to find any Christian leader who considers the Mormon faith as something under the Christian umbrella.
That isn't a one-way street, either. It was Joseph Smith himself who said that other Christian denominations were "all wrong ... all their creeds were an admonition in his sight, and that those professors were all corrupt."
But now, all of a sudden, Romney wants to give a speech about his faith that is designed to do nothing other than insulate himself from questions about that very faith. In a speech that was supposed to be so clear and defining, it used the word "Mormon" exactly once and the word "Christian" exactly once.
I have no problems with Mormonism, or with Mormons. What people choose to believe is their own personal prerogative, and it is not my place to judge that. I don't think that being Mormon disqualifies you from being President.
But to me, this speech was just another attempt by Mitt Romney to engage in doublespeak. Mitt Romney does not want to explain his faith, he wants to obfuscate it. His speech was nothing more than a shallow attempt to pander to evangelicals by glossing over the substantial differences in doctrine and belief between Mormonism and other Christian faiths. Like, for instance, Romney's belief that God had a wife. Or that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.
We'll see how voters in Iowa and other early states respond to this speech in the next week. My guess is that Romney's speech will create more questions among its target audience than it answered.
1 comment:
Many of the beliefs of the Christian faith are crazy, but the things that Mormons believe are CRAZY!
Mitt Romney and his Holy Underwear are a whole new level of scary.
Post a Comment