Monday, March 19, 2012

Mitt Romney Should Not Have to Be Nation's Mormon Apologist In Chief - The Maureen Dowd Column

There had been a ton of ink split on Mitt Romney's problems with Evangelicals and Evangelical views toward Mormons. I actually have thought Mitt Romney has held his own. Also I have found on the whole that many Evangelicals , and many religious others that have problems with the theology of Mormons have been careful and tactful . I think it is much more subdued than many people predicted.

Not so for the progressive side that seems to keep pushing the anti Mormon buttons. A huge offender yesterday was Maureen Dowd in the New York Times. See Is Elvis a Mormon?

I don't want nor do I expect Mitt Romney to have to be the public defender, person that apologizes , or chief Apologist for the Mormon Faith. In fact I think Mitt Romney would find that very improper.

At some point there is going to have to be a Come To Jesus meeting with some people in the public square as to this.


APOV said...

You are certainly correct that neither Romney, nor any other candidate should have to be an apologist for his religious faith or affiliation. But Santorum, Pat Robertson, and other elements in American society, apparently including the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church have taken it upon themselves to try to tear down the wall of separation between church and state, which was supposed to have been a settled issure going back to Jefferson. Under these circumstances it is a very valid and very important issue as to what the candidate will try to force upon the American public because of his own religion. I remember it being a big issue that Jimmy Carter stopped the serving of hard liquor at state dinners, and I am curious as to whether Romney would ban all alcohol including wine, as well as coffee from the White House. That is a relatively minor issue, but it does affect foreign policy. Anyone who has ever visited the Mormon architecture in Salt Lake City as a tourist knows that these people really give you the hard sell, and we need to know if Romney as president will be trying to proselytize among the foreign heads of state, as well as American citizens who have already have their own religious faith. We know that the Catholic leadership is trying to take over the government in an effort to end reproductive freedom, even though they can't even get their own members to go along with their prohibition of birth control. And it certainly concerns me as to what Romney would try to force upon me because of his religion rather than mine.

James H said...

Well I disagree that the Catholic Church or it's Bishops are infringling in a imporper way ( nor Rick Santorum) on views in the public square. If there is a" Wall of Seperation" the Church's viewpoint is its the GOVT imposing on that side.

As to Romney I never got a sense he acted in a improper way as GOVERNOR in promoting his faith

APOV said...

Well threatening Catholic politicians with eternal damnation if they don't use their governmental offices to take dictation from the Catholic Church to end reproductive freedom, rather than to represent and do the will of the citizens who elected them is certainly infringing upon the American separation of church and state. There was a great deal of publicity about how the Catholic priests and bishops were threatening John Kerry, but he stood his ground and said that he would maintain separation of church and state if he had been elected. Of course he is divorced and remarried, but they don't seem to have any interest in making him conform in his personal life, they just want to take control over the government through the Catholic politicians who get elected. This is a dangerous situation to American freedom, and nobody should be elected unless we, the people have determined that they will perform their duties independant of being controlled by religious leadership figures.

James H said...

OK First what Prelates are threatening enternal damanation? They can't do that because they have not the power

And just because people are blogging about the CHURCH should excomunicate x does not meam anything.

I think in the US we have one politico that has been banned from communion because of a political stance

Again thought that is the Churces business not the GOVT

APOV said...

Isn't being refused communion equal to eternal damnation for Catholics? I don't know why anyone wouldn't just laugh in their faces if ex-communicated by these people. They are the Church of the Mafia, and they have always shared in the ill-gotten gains of the Mafia, and they certainly don't refuse communtion, absolution and all such as that to the Mafia dons. A huge number of them are pedophiles and ephebophiles and closet homosexuals who favor sex with barely grown men, and yet they have the nerve to refuse providing equal health care for employees on the claim that it would be co-operation with evil. The employees who work for this organization are the ones being duped into co-operating with evil. It was widely reported in 2008 that Nancy Pelosi was being pressured by the Pope himself to obey his dictates on the abortion issue, rather than to represent the constituents who sent her to Congress. Almost all of the Supreme Court justices are Catholics and they face extreme pressure to no longer rule according to the Constitution of these United States but to rule as ordered by an old man in Rome who is not even an American. We are in jeopardy of losing our right to govern ourselves if we allow any breach in the separation of church and state.