I have a lot of respect for Chuck Colson. I have ever since I was an Evangelical and learned of his work with Prison Fellowship. I listened to his radio appearances, read his writings, and admired his sincere conversion to Christ following the events of Watergate.
To my mind, he’s a good guy.
But I flat out disagree with a recent opinion piece he wrote.
Here’s what he has to say:
Presidential Religion: Enough, Already!
A few days ago I was on the air with Los Angeles’s outstanding drive-time host, Frank Pastore - a keen worldview thinker. Frank told me his phone lines have been burning up over the comments made by a prominent evangelical pastor who said that presidential candidate Mitt Romney belongs to a cult.
Should Christians vote for a Mormon? Is Mormonism a cult? Let me say right off: These questions are an enormous distraction in an important presidential campaign. The secular media is using the pastor’s comments to paint evangelicals as bigots. The Chicago Tribune is calling this “hate speech.”
I want to say this to every Christian listening to my voice: Let’s stop criticizing candidates for their religious convictions.
Where to begin with this?
I heard about the remarks that the pastor made regarding Mormonism being a cult, and I agree with Colson that this is not helpful.
But the idea that we should stop criticizing political candidates for their religious convictions? What is Colson thinking?
Suppose a candidate was a Quaker of a particularly traditional sort and a complete pacifist. He might say, “This is my sincere religious conviction,” but we would rightly criticize the idea of electing a commander in chief who was fundamentally morally opposed to the use of military force. Or name any number of other issues that a person might claim to hold as a religious conviction that would have an impact on American society should he be elected. Whether he is to be praised or criticized for that is something that not only could but should be part of political discussions.
“But,” Colson might object, “that’s not the same as talking about his basic religious affiliation.”
True, but one’s basic religious affiliation is a guide to more particular views—or at least it should be. And if it’s not, if a politician says, “I belong to this group, but I reject its fundamental teachings” then that tells us that the politician is a hypocrite, which itself tells us something about his worthiness for office. (Yes, I know it’s tempting to say, “They’re all hypocrites,” but there are degrees of hypocrisy, and the more brazen a hypocrite is, the more that says.)
But before we get too far down the road, let’s hear from Colson again:
And let me make a few things, as my former boss used to say, perfectly clear.
First, there is no religious test for public office. If you don’t believe me, check out the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Paragraph 3. The public statements of some evangelicals that they wouldn’t vote for Romney because of his Mormonism would cause the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves.
I admire that Colson is willing to make a Nixon reference (“my former boss”) in this context. That’s a bit gutsy. But what he follows it with is complete nonsense, and—having worked as much in government and politics as he has—Colson ought to know better.
It’s true that the Constitution provides that there is not to be any religious test for public office. What that means is this: The government cannot declare you to ineligible for office on the basis of your religion.
This says nothing about whether voters may take your religion into account when determining how they would cast their votes.
Voters can take into account whatever they want in determining how to vote. That is a fundamental democratic right that the Founders wanted to protect. They would be spinning in their graves at the idea that voters should not be free to vote however they want, including according to the moral and religious values they may have.
So what’s with Colson sounding like a 1980s liberal saying that voters must not vote their faith? Back then the pretext for this claim was “separation of Church and State” (a phrase that nowhere appears in the Constitution). Colson’s “there is no religious test” is no different. Both are gross misunderstandings that discourage voters from voting their faith.
Second, as voters we are to choose the most competent people to be God’s magistrates to do justice, restrain evil, and preserve order. That’s what the Bible calls for. And in our country, where we have the precious liberty of choosing our leaders, we are responsible for picking competent men and women. See Jethro’s advice to Moses in Exodus 18. While choosing men to help him judge the people, Moses was to select first of all competent men. Those men were also to be godly - that is, men of good moral standing and character.
Here I think Colson’s Evangelical tie to sola scriptura is hindering his thought a little. The Bible doesn’t “call for” us to elect any particular sort of people to political office—not in any direct way. It doesn’t say anything about electing people to political office one way or another, because the Bible was written in a context that did not include modern representative democracies.
That’s not to say that there are not moral principles that are to be applied in electing officials. There most definitely are, and these are in various way and to varying degrees expressed and reflected in Scripture, but Colson overclaims what the Bible actually says regarding the popular vote.
He’s right, though, that we are “to choose the most competent people to be God’s magistrates to do justice, restrain evil, and preserve order,” but technical competence is not enough. Elected officials also must not have a corrosive effect on society in other ways.
Colson’s appeal to Jethro’s advice to Moses in picking assistant judges is also odd. Colson summarizes that these assistants “were also to be godly—that is, men of good moral standing and character.”
This flattens out the definition of what “godly” means. The text of Exodus 18 says that they are to be “men who fear God.” The true God, that is. Not goat idols or other pagan conceptions of divinities that were around in their day. These men were not to be polytheists.
Yet Mormonism’s polytheism is precisely what Colson is asking us to overlook in this case.
What effect would it have had if Moses had chosen the worshippers of goat idols to assist him in his judging duties—however otherwise of “good moral standing and character” they were?
It would have a corrosive effect on the faith of the children of Israel and would have further damaged their relationship with the true God.
Third, let me answer the question that is causing so much angst. Is the Mormon faith Christian? No. It is not. There are significant and un-reconciled doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Christianity, like the sole sufficiency of Christ and the exclusivity of the Bible.
For me to say there are such differences is not “hate speech.” To deny that there are differences would be disrespectful of the truth claims made by Mormons and degrades my own truth claims. No one in good conscience can do that.
Okay, good for Colson that he recognizes Mormons (or “the Mormon faith”) is not Christian. And while he’s right that they do not acknowledge “the sole sufficiency of Christ” or “the exclusivity of the Bible” (awkward phrases Colson is using to avoid rejecting Catholics as Christians—he’s prepared to say that we recognize Christ’s sufficiency and the Bible’s uniqueness in a way that Mormons do not), he’s missing the big one.
Chuck: Mormons are polytheists. They believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three different gods, that there are countless other gods besides, and that somewhere there is a “God the Mother” with whom the Father celestio-biologically reproduced Jesus.
Further, they believe that we are the same species as the gods and that by being a good Mormon you can grow up to be a divinity with your own planet of billions of people worshipping you.
Worse, they claim that actual Christianity is a false and degraded, apostate Christianity. That they are the true, restored Christianity.
They are therefore polytheists of a type that goes way beyond ancient paganism. Back then apotheosis was reserved for the emperor or the pharaoh, but more importantly polytheists did not claim to be Christians, much less to be the only true expression of Christianity with actual Christianity being a theological perversion.
Mormonism thus subverts the core doctrine of Christianity (the doctrine of God), passes off true Christianity as a counterfeit, and holds itself out to the public to be the genuine article.
Having said that, there may be no other group of people I appreciate more as co-belligerents than the Mormons. They are stalwarts on life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty issues.
So let them be co-belligerents. That doesn’t mean making one of them commander in chief, or that it’s wrong or a “distraction” to question whether it’s wise to make one commander in chief.
To sum up, I’m with Luther, who reportedly said that he would rather be governed by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.
Now I’ve never publicly endorsed a candidate, and I’m not doing it now. But I would personally vote for a competent nonbeliever who would protect life, liberty, and marriage, before I would vote for an incompetent Christian—or even a competent one—who would not stand for those overriding moral issues.
Our ultimate decision has to be based on what Augustine taught. We must live obediently in the City of Man as the best of citizens, doing our civic duty, which includes voting responsibly, as a reflection of our primary citizenship in the City of God.
Where does this leave us? Come on: Stop talking about the candidates’ religion. It’s distracting and it marginalizes Christianity in the public debate. Let’s continue instead to work to advance the Kingdom of God and pick, to the best of our ability, a candidate of competence and sound character who will preserve order and promote justice in our land.
I appreciate that Mormons share many social and moral values that make it possible for us to stand with them on many issues, such as abortion, marriage, and others. And I’m happy to work with them on that basis.
But there are other candidates who also share those values, and some of those other candidates would not have the corrosive effect on American religious life that an election of a Mormon to the highest office in the land would.
Remember: Mormonism is a faith that rejects the central doctrine of the Christian faith while passing itself off as the true Christian faith, to the exclusion of all actual Christians.
Electing a Mormon president would further confuse and already deeply confused American public about what Christianity is. It would do enormous disservice to the cause of Christ in America, and that must be added to the scales in weighing other issues, whether they are abortion, marriage, taxes, the economy, or whatever else.
If you don’t believe me about the mainstreamizing effect electing a Mormon would have, look at what has happened to the social situation of Catholics since 1960, when John Kennedy was elected. Catholics are vastly more socially and politically accepted now than they were then. Electing a Catholic president had an effect on how Americans perceived Catholics. There are vastly fewer Americans today who claim that Catholics aren’t Christians than there were in 1960. The difference is that Catholics are Christians, together with their Protestant brethren.
Mormons are not, and it does neither them nor the American public a favor to offer the legitimization that comes with the presidency.
Public opinion is impacted by the law. Making abortion legal made people look more favorably on abortion than they did before.
It is also impacted by who gets elected. People rally around their leaders, and if a Mormon were elected president it would confer a new legitimacy on Mormonism that would even further confuse the American public about what Christianity is.
That’s not a “distraction” from the political debate. It’s an item that must be part of it.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Catholics need to be very careful with whom they align. Pastor Jeffress, who started this whole thing by launching an attack against Mormons, had this to say about Catholics last year:
“Much of what you see in the Catholic Church today doesn’t come from God’s word. It comes from that cult-like, pagan religion. Isn’t that the genius of Satan?”
As for Mormons not being Christians, I wholeheartedly disagree. Check out what the Mormons say on that issue by going to: http://newsroom.lds.org/topic/core-beliefs
What do I think .. I think you don’t know what the Bible says as well as the Mormons know it .. Jesus said He was the Son of God many more times than He said He was God the Father ..
But .. truly .. a political campaign is not the place to have theological discussions .. it is only that you assume to know so well but so narrowly in fact .. that you can say that any other doctrine is beyond the pale .. as for becoming Gods .. you stress that .. but Christ said that those who follow Him would inherit all that the Father hath .. the Bible is clear .. you just have to read it seriously ..
Theosis Jesus Christ’s church must represent man’s potential correctly 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, Psalm 82, John 10:34 “If we are children (of God),” wrote the apostle Paul to the Romans (8:17, New International Version), “then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ.” “To him that overcometh,” says the Savior to John the Revelator (3:21, KJV), “will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear.”
Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, “The Son of God became man, that we might become God.” Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd Century: “we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods” Justin Martyr in mid 2nd Century said: “all men are deemed worthy of becoming ‘gods,’ and of having power to become sons of the Highest” St. Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible, (d. A.D. 419), wrote that “God made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice, and are become perfect, are gods and sons of the Most High”
Clement of Alexandria said worthy men “are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior.” Origen in reference to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 said “Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God . . As, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” The Gospel of Thomas (which pre-dates the 4 Gospels, but was considered non-canonical by the Nicene Council) quotes the Savior: “He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him,” (Gospel of Thomas 50, 28-30, Nag Hammadi Library in English, J.M.Robinson, 1st ed 1977; 3rd ed. 1988) For further information on this subject, refer to http://NewTestamentTempleRitual.blogspot.com The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) agrees with Early Christian church leaders regarding theosis.
Render on to God what is God’s, render on to Ceaser what is Ceasers. Being from Irish Catholic Boston I dated a Mormon Lady once she was so kind and nice and very sober made vfor a cheap date up here in Boston. Nice people. LOL Godd bless and Pax. Dr Thomas
The constitution provides for no religious test, but it also includes no competence, decency, intelligence, morality, knowledge, leadership or prudence test. It’s deeply disingenuous for Colson and many others to imply that the absence of a religious test in the constitution means we must not consider religion in electing our president.
I, for one, am sick of this discussion. If Americans are confused about what Christianity is, it has nothing to do with Mormonism but everything to do with the fact that people who claim to be Christians simply do not act like Christians.
It is an undisputed fact that the citizens of Utah, the vast majority of whom are Mormons, practice charity to a greater degree than any other place in this country. They believe in taking care of and loving their neighbor. And THEY. PRACTICE what they preach.
My theology is pretty Orthodox, and it matters not all to me that Romney is a Mormon. I have no fear that people are going run off and join the LDS. Mormon missionaries have knocked on my door many times, young innocent fresh faced kids, and they have no chance in getting me to leave the Church. Why would a career politician be any more successful?
You sound like a bigot, Jimmy, even if everything you are saying about the Mormons is true. You want people to practice Christianity? How about starting with yourself?
Most mainstream religions teach that the pathway to a happy after-life is based on contributing to a specific one and only church.
Thank you Mr. Akin for a very good, informative article. There is much to think about when voting. The Mormon religion may stand with us on moral social issues, but that does not mean the person stands with those issues. Look at Catholics like Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, Kerry, Cuomo, etc who say they are Catholic yet vote for and promote abortion, contraception, same-sex “marriage” and embryonic stem cell research. Just because someone says they are a certain religion doesn’t mean they will uphold the teachings/ beliefs. You have to look at their voting record and who they have and are associated with. Mr Romney for instance has a record of flip flopping on abortion and same sex “marriage”. (he was for it before he was against it) He would not even give a definite answer when asked recently if adoption for same sex couples was ok.
Jeff Schrade’s comment is correct about Pastor Jeffress….who also said that the Catholic Church was the “!@#$% of Babylon”. This is Perry’s pastor. And even though Perry has denounced Jeffress on his statements it makes you wonder. Just like the Obama/ Rev Wright controversy….Obama attended his church for 20 years but didn’t “hear” any of his anti-American, anti-white, liberation theology preached? Obama claims to be Christian but what are his real beliefs? I think we’ve found out!
I don’t criticize Romney for being LDS; I question the qualifications of any professed Mormon to hold the office of president. If one professes the beliefs of the LDS there are two possibilities to consider: Either he does not in fact believe the teachings of Mormonism and is therefore a fraud or he does believe them and is therefore intellectually unqualified to hold public office. This latter condition also includes professing Mormon beliefs without actually knowing or understanding them.
excellent analysis as always, Jimmy.
At this point, whether Romney is LDS or not is moot. He is more pro-life than any Democrat (he DOES allow exceptions so not pure), therefore if it is between him and Obama, then Mormonism or not I will be forced to vote for Romney.
The bottom line is I’d rather have a Mormon or a Jehovah Witness or whatever pagan “cult” who is pure 110% pro-life “from womb to tomb” than a self-professed Christian.
James Adlrich, you are spot-on with your commentary! As we dialogue, there is a window-less room somewhere at the DNC where knives are sharpened for a Romney nominee with pointed questions like, “Do you really believe you’ll be a God of your own planet someday?” “Do you really believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?” “Can you understand why Jews would be upset by the Mormon practice of proxy-baptising them after death? ...Have you ever stood in proxy-baptism for a deceased person?”
When people listen to these sound-bites on the evening news - they will have doubts as to this man’s intellectual capacity or honesty. “Do I really want my country led by someone who believes this stuff?”
I’m glad that some of you have known nice people who happen to be Mormon. However nice they may be should not legitimize their religion. Just because Mormons say they are Christians does not make them Christians. Just because many follow directions, does not make those giving the directions right in all things. Judging Mormons by observation is the same as judging a book by its cover. Pretty covers sell books. Its called marketing. Many of the books turn out to not be worth the money. The substance of Mormonism is not the same as the attrative cover. I think Jimmy is very accurate in his assessment of Mormonism and the role faith plays in the presidency.
Sen. Rick Santorum’s take on this question at the debate last night struck me as right on. He said that we need to take into consideration a candidate’s values but not his doctrinal views on salvation.
I would prefer a non-Mormon candidate for all the reasons you list, but if Mitt Romney is the GOP presidential candidate against Barack Obama, I will vote for Romney. Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history and every value he embraces is the opposite of where I am. Romney says he is pro life, and pro life is my litmus test for elected officials.
Surely Mr. Akin is not suggesting we vote for Obama over Romney?
God used pagans to do His will when his people rebelled. This past Sunday’s reading show that God used “his anointed, Cyrus,” even though he “knew me not,” to accomplish his will. (Isaiah 45:1,4-6) Maybe he can use Romney in the same way.
It’s surreal for me to be in agreement with Colson over Akin.
I just don’t see how I can eliminate millions of good people the possibility of being President simply because his/her religion confuses Americans.
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. I’ve never seen one before. It always comes down to selecting the best available candidate. If that best available candidate is not Christian, so be it.
many people here seem to be confused about what Jimmy is and is not saying:
1) he’s not saying Obama is a better candidate than Romney
2) he’s not saying being Mormon should rule anyone out or that he would never vote for a Mormon.
Here’s what I believe he is saying. Romney’s Mormonism should be taken into account, just as I take fiscal and foreign policy into account. It may be that there are other acceptable candidates in the RNC who are Christians. Let’s not get carried away and start attacking the straw man.
People have to realize that Mormonism is disassociating itself from its former beliefs and convictions, up to the point that they are even using St. Athanasius and St. Ireneas to support their concept of progression using CCC 460 to back it up, as verification that Joseph Smith had it right and the Catholic Church’s teachings are proving it.
Mormon scholars are now discovering the Early Church Fathers, albeit with their own interpretations.
I find the Mormon people wonderful. But where they are cult like is the difficulties people have when leaving; if anything they could lose their family life, the encouragement at temple work in participating in baptism of the dead, as well as their invalidation of Christianity, ignoring the practices of the Church and ancient liturgies, but still believing in a lost tribe in America and the initial beliefs of Joseph Smith’s revelations about the rest of Christianity.
Alot of tithing goes into building temples where membership is increased with such dubious baptisms of the dead or marriage sealing where the couple will have future chidren in their concept of the afterlife. Mormonism is actively seeking to be the dominant world religion, and is building its 15 acre temple in the countryside of Rome, also hoping to share in the awe the world gives to ancient Roman edifices as well as the Vatican.
There is also the other perception that Mormons hold many place in government with its ambition to have the Mormons oversee our government and Constitution.
Nevertheless, people have to look at the merits of Governor Romney and judge for themselves.
Please this is getting very un christian like. I understand your concerns but I feel he is a good and ethical man of principal. This is the USA are you saying a person of ethical higher moral stanmding cannot be President . That would be contrary to our values as a nation. Can some day a moral Buddhist or Hindu not be President. ???? We all have are customs and traditions of men some not always biblical by our standards and our customs and traditions. You bare all going down a slippery sloop. God bless pax. Dr Thomas
I think that Mitt Romney is a good and decent man and that he’d probably be a good president. My concern as a Catholic is whether electing a Mormon would give greater legitimacy and exposure to a religion which has many questionable and strange beliefs. We can respect Mormonism for its family values and clean living, but it is after all a false religion (with many many people of good intent). So do we want our country to be represented by someone with these beliefs? I have to admit I’m not quite comfortable with it…
Theosis in New Testament Times,
I always find it interesting when Mormon apologists turn to the early Church Fathers to support their doctrine. They are dangerous company for Mormon theology .. especially Athanasius.
The core issue is what do they mean by “become gods?” Athanasius is very clear about what he *doesn’t* mean. In his third treatise against the Arians, he wrote: “To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.” Athanasius is probably the staunchest proponent of classical Trinitarian theology. To appeal to his authority in order to support a theology that denies the Trinity is a losing proposition.
The Greek words that early Church Fathers such as Athanasius used, “theopoie” and “theosis” are more clearly rendered “made divine.” They are much looser words than the concrete “become a God.” We’re talking about an idea that pre-dates Christianity and authors writing about it as Christianity was figuring out what it meant for Christians. Proof-texting, as bad a theological practice as it is in general, is especially bad in this case, because you are quoting authors who are still coming to a conclusion to support the conclusion you have already come to.
The cult aspect of Mormonism is reflected by those who want to leave Mormonism but are afraid of loosing their families. Or they have to tithe, and a sizeable amount goes to building Mormon temples where couples are sealed so they can bring forth multitude of spirit children, or where controversial baptism of the dead are performed to bring in more members. The other is taking early Church Fathers and Catholic Catechism 460 out of context to justify the concept of Mormon progression where one becomes a god irregardless of what Catholics try to correct them on.
A grandiose Mormon temple is going up in the outskirts of Rome. The Mormon church is hoping to get its share of the awe already given to the ancient edifices of Rome and that given the Vatican.
In May of 2008 the Vatican stated that the Mormon church is not to gain access to our sacramental records to be used in making new Mormon members through the Temple baptisms.
People considering Mormonism have been rushed into baptism, only to find the ‘meat’ of their doctrines afterwards, like a switch and bait.
Finally, as stated in the article, the construct of Mormonism is based essentially that Christianity is corrupt. You can state the many ancient liturgical references to Mormons such as St. Justin the Martyr describing the Mass in 155 AD to them, but instead they will glean his writings and find a phrase referencing gods….to prove we become gods….
How much does Governor Romney reflect these practices, we don’t know. But the practices of Mormonism is dualistic, and their deliberate misrepresentation of our faith to their believers…now that they are ‘discovering’ the ancient Church Fathers proving Joseph Smith was right all along….we become gods….a serious disconnect in integrity of faith.
Jimmy this is dumbest thing you have written. See - http://www.kentuckypoliticalreview.com/?p=4415
Sure Catholics were better accepted at the time of Kennedy’s presidency but I think that came from a Hollywood that wasn’t afraid to show Catholic themes and priests in a good light. It was also the work of popular priests like Fr. Peyton and the popular and well known Bishop Sheen. The Catholics in political office after Kennedy often won despite their Catholic faith or, like Kennedy, by separating themselves from it.
Good article, Jimmy. Too bad so many people don’t get it. I think the liberal media hates Rick Perry and wants Romney to win the nomination because they think Obama can defeat him. If Romney does win the nomination, watch the liberal media go after him for his Mormom beliefs.
Jimmy’s concerns are well founded.
He is not at all saying that Mormons cannot run for President. He is saying that YOU, as a Catholic, ought to consider the repercussions that could occur if a Mormon does become President and factor that into your voting alongside other issues Catholics must factor in. It is not trivial!
However, I feel it’s too little too late with regards to saving America from its fractured and confused Christianity. Many Christians are apostates. Many Catholics have unwittingly excommunicated themselves. Many Catholics are already heretics either knowledgeably or unwittingly. The cause for Christianity and more specifically Catholicism is sadly lost in America who will turn further and further pagan… unless of course something DRASTIC happens, and that only God Himself can provide, and unfortunately the Church today is too tied up with politics and modernist thought to turn towards God and the Queen of Heaven to ask for a miracle that will turn the tides.
The Church seems to believe that human effort alone is all that is required and that’s been failing us ever since. Ecumenism as it has been carried out, is a failure. Dialoguing with evil, a force that has always been one sided, has been a failure. The Shepherds have lost their flocks to the wolves. Sure we are always encouraged to work with God to evangelize, but how does the Church expect the laity to do so when it failed to do so itself by not following through on the requests of Our Lady of Fatima to perform the consecration of Russia whose errors have now completely enveloped America, Europe, the UN and spreading itself everywhere. America under Obama is moving more towards Communist and Socialist practice under the banner of democracy.
That’s always been America’s problem. It turned democracy and Presidential candidates into a new religion and into new saviors. America idolized their political system and worshiped it, and proclaimed the Gospel of ‘democracy’ throughout the world over that of Christ. And the state it is in has as much to do with the errors of Protestantism as it does the errors of Communism.
The upcoming election will not help the situation. Democracy is not going to help you. It was inevitably going to always end up this way. Only God alone can turn the tides, and America has elected God out of office. It has thrown out the sovereign rights of Kings which were to reflect the order of Heaven and God as King to that of democracy where it has completely overturned the divine order of things, as Satan loves to do, where the bottom believes it can tell the top what to do. It has forgotten that the world itself is still under a monarchy, that of Christ the King, who is it rebelling against. And the ultimate irony is that it never had any real democracy to begin with. Just a ruling class two party system who are in cahoots with each other, only putting on a facade of staunch opposition for the public. Both shall do evil in their own way. Any good people in the system will hardly matter. People who ought to be elected don’t have the backing. Money and media power have chosen your candidates for you already. Whoever wins you lose.
Though ironically, one can’t solely blame the people in office. Those people came from a society who raised them that way. God gives people the leaders they asked for. He gave them Saul when they rejected Him. And he’ll give them Obamas and Romneys because that’s who the people wanted. A corrupt generation begets corrupt leaders. The greatest punishment God sends us is to let us have things our own way.
The problems of the world right now I believe are unfixable by any method man can devise. If the economy could’ve been fixed it would’ve been implemented already. The deception that mankind believes in is to imagine that any progress the world ever made was based on man’s actions alone. This is false. Christian civilization built it under the providence of God. Athiests and liberal secular humanists, who are running the world, simply do not get that at all, and they’re hitting their heads against a brick wall. So blinded are they by their own dogmatic religious convictions that in their pride they will never have the humility to return to God’s way of doing things. They have always been selfish and prejudiced and staunchly believe that their failed method of doing things will inevitably produce results and get mankind to ‘evolve.’
Saving the world requires radical change and sacrifice. Modern man is immune from either of these things. It will require a great interior conversion of every individual to work. And it cannot be a false or engineered conversion. It must be a true one that is logical and consistent and in tune with the greater realities of man made in God’s image, of the facts of heaven and hell that exist after death, and of the futility of humanism and naturalism. False religions such as those must be eradicated. Heresies must be eradicated. The Church is once again finding itself increasingly in the same position it was in, a minority threatened and in danger, persecuted and martyred as it was in Israel and Rome. Only then will true Evangelism begin, and the long journey to restore the world make any progress. Currently the Church is in retreat. Actually, that’s not true it all… It was always a small minority of true believers who changed the world… it was just fashionable for a time, and when the times changed, the people who change with the times moved on.
The problem with the Church now is that unlike the Church before it has unwittingly providing money and arms to its enemies that are being used against itself, it thinking it is being ‘tolerant’ and ‘open’ it has conceded enormous ground and exposed innocents to the violence of false ideologies and heresies. It believed it could play nice with the anti-Christ and got bitten. It gave a world that is too fragile and broken far too much credit. it was this enormous shift of focus that was unwise. And it has cost us millions of souls… May God have mercy on us first, before He has mercy on those outside, for we are held to a higher standard than they…
Basically Jimmy is saying Catholics are dumber than a sack of hammers. Because of their stupidity he claims we should avoid voting for a Mormon. I think Jimmy’s is suffering from dementia. If Catholics knew what they believed this would be non-issue. He needs to put blame where it is do. Catholics are wafer worshipping idolators and have twisted both Scripture and the Church Fathers to suppor their superstitious nonsense. Bottomline: Mormons are polytheists, while Catholics are superstitious idolators.
Once again may I hear comments if he was a Jew , Hindu, Buddhist or Muslem what are we to do as a country. The voters will decide we must be carefull with these kinds of mean testing. I agree with all concern but what do you do. Vote. God bless pax. Dr Thomas
Jimmy Akin concludes his article by asking: “What do you think?” I think that Jeffress, Martin Luther and Bill Maher are all correct about the Roman Catholic Church. Jeffress says that the RCC is “satanic” and “derived from a Babylonian mystery cult.” Martin Luther says that the RCC is the “Whore of Babylon” and that the Pope is the “Antichrist.” But Maher said it best—the RCC is “an international child sex ring.” Therefore, I am not voting for a Catholic for anything, no matter how well qualified.
Tell your priests to pull their penises out of the anuses of their choir boys.
All I hear is alot of ignorance and religious bigotry in some of the comments here and agree with a few comments. President Nixon was raised as a Quaker, was he a pacifist? J.F.K. was Catholic,enough said.What if a person is let’s say a freemason?I imagine alot of you would attack that too even though every signer of The Declaration of Indeopendence was a freemason and many of our Presidents were too. How about a Jewish person?They aren’t Christians. My point is this. I do not think Mitt Romney being a Mormon should be a disqualifier for his candidacy, his knowledge of how America works and his econonmic strategies, his ability to obey The Constitution and his views on our serious problems should be the litmus test and if we have a Mitt Romney as President I guarantee you there’ll be no loose women, wild parties at The White House and it will not have to be exorcised or disinfected like after a couple of recent Presidents terms were and will be over.
Google “Is Mormonism A Christian Denomination?” by Catholic apologist Mary Kochan. Reading it, many would have serious reservations about voting for someone who took its core principles seriously. Romney is a ‘bishop’ in the Mormon Church, not a casual attendee.
Jimmy Akin is NOT a bigot; I know of few persons who are as measured and even-toned and courteous as he, even with those who disagree.
Mormons are polytheists when they know their religion well; however, it must be admitted that many Mormons are as vague about the more obscure doctrines of the LDS religion as a Christmas-and-Easter pro-choice Catholic is about Catholicism. So, while LDS is a polytheistic faith—that’s merely objective analysis of their writings—it doesn’t necessarily follow that every Mormon is a knowing, considered, conscious polytheist.
Also, Mormon polytheism doesn’t amount to worshiping all of the many gods in which they believe. I’m not sure that makes much difference, though; Greeks didn’t give sacrifices to all the gods, but often chose particular ones as preferred subjects of devotion.
More significantly, Mormon polytheism isn’t quite THEISM in the Christian sense of the word; their “gods” are more like powerful, occasionally trans-corporeal space aliens in some ways than like the Judeo-Christian deity whose intent alone preserves the existence of every atom in the universe, who is both transcendent and immanent, whose omnipresence means not only presence at all points in space but all moments in time, who can call all places “here” and all times “now,” who created the universe from nothing.
I think that Jimmy Akin is correct that a Romney administration would further mainstream Mormonism, as the recordings of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir have already done.
And since LDS downplays the obscure doctrines which make them different from Christianity, and play up the similarities to Evangelical Christianity (but with the benefit of a visible Church, like Catholicism), the result is a kind of “bait and switch”: A person might become a Mormon, be grateful for the warmth of family and community life, and only later, after he’d raised his kids as Mormons for a decade, come to wonder if there weren’t some wacky things under the surface.
So there is a danger, should Romney become president. I don’t think we should deny that.
I think that danger a bit less, however, than the danger of Obama remaining president, with his likely inclinations in selecting pro-choice Supreme Court justices should the need arise, and leftists for the Federal judiciary, and his record of attacking conscience protections for pro-lifers and the ministerial exception for churches in general…setting aside the profound economic damage, diplomatic damage, and smirking disregard for Americans who don’t fit into his red-diaper academic clique.
Even in a deep recession, the economic and diplomatic stuff is perhaps less critical than the risk of further confusing souls of the already-religiously-confused American public. I grant that.
But the lives of innocent children are pretty overwhelmingly important, and we know Romney’d be a darned sight better than the current administration in that regard.
So all in all, Romney is the lesser of two evils.
But Romney isn’t the nominee, yet.
Rick Perry is an EVEN LESSER evil than Romney. So is Herman Cain.
I’m not sure which of the two of them is better, but they’re both plausible alternatives to Romney, and if Cain isn’t the nominee, I’d be surprised if he wasn’t offered the Veep slot on the ticket, unless Marco Rubio enters the picture, or unless the candidate is so low on money that he asks Romney to be running-mate just to obtain some cash.
So there are plenty of opportunities still out there for a non-Romney candidate who’ll be a marked improvement on the current administration. As usual, in a fallen world, there is no perfect choice to be had.
maybe in one of the next debates, someone could ask Romney if Joseph Smith would have approved 100% of the American Constitution and the founders who signed it? If he said, ‘I don’t know, it doesn’t matter..’, they could follow up with, “would you ever follow the teachings of Joseph Smith or any other Mormon leader over and above U.S. Law?” I think it would be revealing to hear his answer. Afterall, Kennedy was asked as much regarding Catholicism, and the people seemed to want to know the answer.
Some Mormon quotes about America:
“While in the Temple at Nauvoo we voted to cut off the gentiles who had rejected the gospel & killed the prophets & it was recorded on earth & is recorded in heaven that [the] Nation WILL GO DOWN QUICKLY.”(WWJ, Vol. 3, p. 260, emphasis mine)
The Same God who inspired our Fathers to Esstablish a Free government said through the prophet Joseph Smith that if ever the Constitution of the United States or its principles were ever preserved it would have to be done by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints even the servants of God Holding the Holy priesthood. THAT DAY HAS NOW COME & the day is dawning when WE ARE CALLED TO ACT. The Same God who has DESTROYED two Nations who have dwelt upon this Continent because of their iniquity, has also said that all other Nations who should occupy this Continent when they were ripened in iniquity should in like manner BE CUT OFF FROM THE EARTH and NOT LEFT TO POLLUTE THE LAND of Joseph or the Land of Zion. I do not know what Els OUR NATION can do in order to FILL UP THEIR CUP OF INIQUITY than what they have done and are doing. I do not know of any other key [p.142] the United States Can turn TO SEAL FAST THEIR CONDEMNATION than the Exertions which they are makeing to destroy the Saints of God for their religion. I AM FOR THE MEASURE because it is right.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 141-142, emphasis mine).
“Eighteen hundred and fifty Seven has past and gone to return no more forever. It has borne its report to heaven of all men and Nations. It has been an important year to Zion and the world. 1857 will be the year on histories page which will be dated THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DOWNFALL OF THE UNITED STATES ...For these things the Judgments of God will now begin to rest more fully upon that Nation and will be INCREASED UPON THEM YEAR BY YEAR UNTILL THEY ARE BROAKEN UP AND WASTED AWAY from under Heaven and CEASE TO BECOME A NATION. And this Calamity will begin to Come SPEDILY upon them. And they will be visited with thunder, lightning, storm, whirl winds Earthquakes floods, pestilence plagues, war and Devouring fire and the wicked will slay the wicked UNTIL THE NATION IS WASTED AWAY AND BROAKEN UP.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 145, emphasis mine).
“President Young said there was an exertion made to separate the union without war but it Cannot be done. THE UNION CANNOT HOLD TOGETHER but a few years. It must soon part”. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 402 December 21, 1859, emphasis mine)
The foundation has been laid during the year 1860 To break up & annihilate the American Government and the scenes which will follow in quick succession will be terrible & horrible in their detail. This Nation is guilty of sheding the Blood of the Lords anointed, of his Prophets & Saints and the Lord Almighty has decreed their destruction. The Lord has Commenced a Controversy with the American Government and Nation in 1860 AND HE WILL NEVER CEASE UNTIL THEY ARE DESTROYED FROM UNDER HEAVEN, AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD [Mormonism] ESTABLISHED UPON THEIR RUINS. Let the Gentiles upon this land prepare to meet their God.” ( Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 529, December 31, 1860, emphasis mine).
“Joseph Smith the Prophet said whoever lived to see 1860 would live to see the foundation laid for some most awful bloody wars and whoever lived to see those two figures Come together 1866 would live to see a day when the Earth would be deluged in blood in many places & there would be such awful distress & Calamity that it would be a vexation to hear the report of it. We may prepare ourselves for an awful time in the United States. The hand writing has been seen upon the wall And our Nations is doomed to destruction. The United States will be visited this year with much affliction more than they have ever seen since they have been a Free Government AND IT WILL INCREASE YEARLY UNTIL THEY ARE DESTROYED.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 533, January 1, 1861, emphasis mine).
WOODRUFF CLAIMS TO BE A “PROPHETIC HISTORIAN”:
I there DECLAIRED AS A PROPHETIC HISTORIAN that this year would be the most distressing year America Ever saw since they were an independant Nation. Time has proven it so.” (WWJ, Vol. 5, p. 615 December 31, 1861, emphasis mine).
As a “prophetic historian” Woodruff (fourth prophet of the Mormon Church) also declared the destruction of America so Mormonism can be built up on it’s ashes. Think carefully about electing someone who believes that these men were prophets.
It’s nice to see that the crowd of george and Carknedge who are more than happy to voice their hatred of Catholicism are also the kind who failed to read and comprehend what Jimmy said… If they had trouble following something simple like reading before they write, I can just imagine how erroneous their views of the Catholic religion as a whole might be… Let’s be charitable and break it down for them…
1) Jimmy didn’t say Mormons couldn’t run for President.
2) Jimmy didn’t say you couldn’t vote for a Mormon.
3) Jimmy did say that you should consider everything Mormons believe in and how this would impact politics and the future of the country when you decide who you’re going to vote for, just as you would a Protestant or a Catholic who doesn’t follow his beliefs, or a secular humanist or otherwise. You know? Exercising Common Sense and knowing the facts and weighing it all before you vote?
4) Catholics are the only ones following Christ’s command in John 6, to eat His Body and Drink His Blood, who clarified it for them 3 times. And you are like the others, like Judas Iscariot who lost faith and walked away. The Church Fathers also clearly speak of the Eucharist and all these things. But given that you failed to comprehend Jimmy’s article and what he’s said with regards to Mormons, it’s no surprise you can’t read the Bible or the Church Fathers either. And in doing so you disobey and betray Christ and His Church for your own man made heretical religions and false doctrines. It would be nice if you could admit that the brand of Christianity you and the other 40,000 or so of you claim to offer in contradiction to one another is not the one Christ or the Bible speak of. Mormonism is just a logical stepchild of Protestantism.
5) Jefress, Martin Luther and Maher all say a lot of things, just like Carknedge, who has an obsession and gleefully delights in mentioning pedarestic rape as a bullet point in his campaign against Catholicism. Meanwhile I bet he fully supports the Psychiatric institutions, homosexual rights organizations and other liberal groups and abortion and contraceptive providers who at this very moment are trying to decriminalize pedophilia, redefine it as not being a psychological disorder and actually being a normal healthy thing and re-term pedophiles and pedarests into the more politically correct ‘minor-attracted persons’ and who are busy trying to introduce sex education to young children under cover of safe sex protection and gay tolerance so that they may one day consent to sex with adults. Carknedge is a person who likes to move with the times and once sex with children is in vogue, Carknedge will feel really silly for the bigoted things he said about them. Isn’t that right Carknedge? We know you’re a sympathizer and that you’ll change your tune to match just about anything, even making child sodomy legal through your support of these organizations and just about anybody so long as they are against the Catholics. How do I know this? Well I just said so, that’s why! You see, all we have to do is simply say things about people and organizations we don’t like and that automatically makes them true! I’m just following your line of logic there ol’ buddy! I’m sure that if I come across more people who don’t like you that they’ll give me all kinds of juicy facts about you!
Brenda: Sadly, the same question could be asked of the Catholic Candidates i.e. “If a current law that your religion specifically disagreed with, would you follow the law or church teaching?” If the Catholic president insisted his first act as president would be to outlaw contraception or eating meat on Fridays. I could never vote for a Catholic because I couldn’t trust his loyalties. Saint Patrick’s Battalion comes to mind.
Wow, just found this quote from Rick Santorum: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Pushing a religious doctrine on a secular society.
This article has the best, concise description of the unusual tenets of the Mormon faith that I have read recently. Mormons in general are wonderful, kind, caring individuals who share many Catholic/Christian values. Living in a Mormon dominant community gives me the right to such an assessment. That being said, they do strive to become the dominant religion and to be in position to run the government when Christ returns. A candidate’s adherence to the tenets of Mormonism MUST be considered, especially when voting for President. To see the effect Mormon leaders have on politics and society in general, you need only to look at the communities near Phoenix, AZ. An example: public high schools in at least one such community allow each student one hour off campus during the school day. This hour is used by the Mormons to have their children attend daily “seminary” at the LDS building adjacent to the school. Classes are offered before and after the standard school hours so those taking “seminary” have enough hours to take the classes needed for graduation.
A religious test for office is very different from individual citizens taking into consideration a candidates beliefs. As a born again Bible believing Christian who is a former lifelong mormon, I would NEVER vote for a mormon for president. Mormon beliefs are similar to the beliefs are similar to the beliefs of scientology.
Mormons believe in multiple gods so that God was not always God. Only the universe is eternal according to mormonism. Mormons also believe that they can become gods, given enough time and effort. Any candidate who believes in that has a warped sense of reality, and I would question his ability to make sound judgements.
Furthermore, Romney is a liberal left-leaning politician who takes on any belief in public that will further his career in politics. Hey, by the way, the mormon church does that too—changing their doctrine to fit the social mores of the time.
To all: While you are all at it - why not check out Perry’s “anointing” as a member of a cult/movement called New Apostolic Reformation” which also “anointed” Palin when she was Mayor in AK; it is a global reach movement/cult whose tenets are to destroy all “icons” whether they be religious or cultural (native artifacts). They force members to destroy “Catholic statues & and pic, particularly dangerous to them are those of the Blessed Mother. They also have desecrated native artifacts and sites. They also enforce “book burnings” of those which NAR decides are idolatrous. They have a stronghold in South American; Africa; TX; Perry’s prayer service of 30,000 people before he declared his run was when he was “anointed” by NAR. Check out their website and youtube pics.
Then tell me - who is more scary? Perry, Palin, etc. (NAR anointed, and apostles) who hate all things Catholic but pose as Christians. They are a loosely connected membership but NOT a Church membership. Bachmann is also one of these as are some other so-called “conservatives”.
I’m a Catholic and I’m voting for Romney. Chris Christy - who is a strong Catholic - and could have been the nominee, has thrown his support behind Romney. Surely Christy knows that not only is Romney a good economic leader, but a good moral man - who at least doesn’t hide his affiliation w/his faith. NAR is a smoke screen for pseudo self-righteous person who deem themselves more capable of setting moral standards for everyone than the faith leaders of other Faiths. For me NAR is very scary - their title tells it all. Their founders also based much of their ideas on Sandoval who ended up burned at the stake for his false teachings.
@Ann Mere: I too share your doubts about Romney and the relationship of his religious beliefs to how he’d be as a president. Politicians and particular political offices are not interchangeable items. Romney is the kind of guy, unlike Orin Hatch, who’d go nuts serving in anything but an executive post, either as president or cabinet secretary of one of the largest departments, i.e., Defense, Agriculture. (God forbid Labor or State!)
When Romney was govenor of Massachusetts, he didn’t make any decisions that reflected any spiritual biases, influences, etc. Liberals supporting gay marriage, same sex adoption, etc., took considerable umbrage at his resistance. Philosophically, at least, he was a friend of the Catholic Church and many conservative Evangelicals in the Bay State. Practically speaking? That remains to be seen. After all, how much of his public opposition to the homosexuality related matters was affected by his sudden case of Potomac Fever, I’m not sure. However, when it came to abortion, did he ever do an about face and all of a sudden became the unbon’s best friend. Well, there was still the matter of Massachusetts’ First Couple’s support for Planned Parenthood almost up to the moment Mitt announced his Damascus Road conversion.
How he managed to find a road to Damascus out of Boston that detoured to Columbia S.C. just in time for a two year-lead-up prep time for the South Carolina Republican Primary ought to be really looked into. My Lord, that takes some twisting of this old round ball God gave us.
A person’s religious beliefs should be open for discussion. What IF a Catholic ran for the highest office and actually planned to let the Magisterium call the shots on nearly everything. Protestants have a right to know that. (Sometimes I think Gingrich wants to be a One Man Magisterium and President all at once, being the “man of ideas” he’s reputed to be.)
While I mean no offense against Evangelical Christians by bringing this up, I sure as heck would NEVER vote against any person profesing beliefs in Christian Zionism and seen hobnobbing with the likes of Tim LaHaye. SOme of these people have very dangerous ideas about pushing the Muslims off the Temple Mount so the new and last Temple could be built there. NO THANKS. That’s begging for trouble a thousand times over. It’s not our job as Americans to force the hand of God in changing history no matter how appealing it might be for people who beieve in the Rapture to see this come about. The President’s administration is at the service of all Americans, not just one sub-group, no matter how politically powerful or fast growing it might be at any given moment.
I’d like to know how Mitt Romney, or any pol, can swear the standard oath of office after first giving an oath to Grover Norquist never to raise taxes. That’s treason because it puts the elected official’s loyalty to a non-elected man, citizen or not, above the nation he’s sworn a solemn oath to serve and put first. What religion allows that. A very, very, very flexible religion.
rover serton:
Secular Humanism is also a religion seeking to impose its own morality and belief system on people. The point at the end being, there is no such thing as ‘neutrality.’ All secular society currently is, is a temporary detente; a cold war between various worldviews and ideologies trying to maintain a temporary armistice until eventually it bubbles over. Because the idea that ideologies diametrically opposed to each other getting along perpetually, was always an illusion. In the end we’ll all have to pick a side, and only one will be left standing. All it needs is for one side to pull the trigger.
But I do agree with the idea of subjecting all candidates to explain their faith and their outlook. It would make life easier for all of us rather than having any second guessing. Providing of course that the candidates are honest. So its best to be thorough and cross examine them.
More American Catholics ought to pay attention to Libertarians like Ron Paul. Yeah he wants to do some radical things, but he’s honestly right, and he’s been consistent. And he’s also pro-life, which is in keeping with his attitude of liberty for all, including the child in the womb who is free to exercise his life. Plus a Libertarian government levels the playing field for everyone. It could mean no government interference in true marriage or religion on being the decider on any moral debates, leaving that to the individual people to work out amongst other things. So there’s no threat against religious people from speaking out against immorality like homosexuality or any sins and fear repercussions from he government. Likewise for the opponents of religion. Of course all this is precisely why many folks would like it if the general public ignored him, because then the government would not support or fund their immoral agendas and will only stick to what governments ought to do and true Church/State separation would exist. Is it possible for Ron Paul to do the things he wants if he did win? Even he admits it’s hard, given the state of the America and all its used to, but he is in my mind the best option. If you want change you’re not going to get it from the candidates the mainstream media prefers you focus on. And Romney is known to be the sort who’ll play both sides of the fence to get ahead, so Mormon or not, he cant be trusted.
Concernint LDS claims about Theosis in New Testament Times being in agreement with Mormonism.
Actually the Early Christians has a different kind of ideal about humans progressing in profection and becoming “gods” than do the Mormons. The word ‘god’ is being used in an ambigious way in Mormon theology. Anciently any immortal being, or one who judges over other humans, or even a spirit force was often termed “Elohim” (Hebrew) or “Theos”(Greek) which in English is “god” or “a god”. Early Christians had a completely different concept about the Almighty Jehovah God than Mormons now hold about their ‘Heavenly Father’ and Jesus. Also what Early Christians believed about humans becoming divine through Christian perfection is completely different than what Mormons teach is means for a human to become a God. The tricky part about Mormonism is that they divide all their information into two divisions. The first division is called the “Preparatory Gospel”—it is an analog of Biblical Christianity—The second division is called “the Fulness of the Gospel”. Its the Fulness division where all the teachings about God the Father having to first become a mortal man to progress to become a God is housed. Also it is part of the Fulness of the Gospel where the teaching are about humans becoming Gods and ruling over their own worlds. So when a person investigates Mormonism often all they get exposed to is the “Preparatory Gospel” that looks very orthodox- and they join under false pretences as to what the Mormon Church ultimately teaches. So many people join the Mormons not understanding what they are really joining. So the Mormon Church can justly be explained to be two separate religions housed under one larger Church administration. Each religious division has its own priesthood, place of worship, sources of religious information, afterlife destiny, and separate Gods. Its truly a very strange system of religion(s).
Why do I think of Chesterton? Oh, yeah—
‘To take an example from comparatively current events: we all know that it was not uncommon for a man to be considered a scarecrow of bigotry and obscurantism because he distrusted the Japanese, or lamented the rise of the Japanese, on the ground that the Japanese were Pagans. Nobody would think that there was anything antiquated or fanatical about distrusting a people because of some difference between them and us in practice or political machinery. Nobody would think it bigoted to say of a people, “I distrust their influence because they are Protectionists.” No one would think it narrow to say, “I lament their rise because they are Socialists, or Manchester Individualists, or strong believers in militarism and conscription.” A difference of opinion about the nature of Parliaments matters very much; but a difference of opinion about the nature of sin does not matter at all. A difference of opinion about the object of taxation matters very much; but a difference of opinion about the object of human existence does not matter at all. We have a right to distrust a man who is in a different kind of municipality; but we have no right to mistrust a man who is in a different kind of cosmos.’
Mormons are Christian according to Mormon standards. But we don’t have to accept Mormonism false standards. BTW how far should we interject religious orthodoxy into politics? As Catholics should we refuse to refer to Protestant Churches as “Churches”? Considering by Catholic standards they are not Churches since they have no bishops in the apostolic succession.
So is Herman Cain doesn’t go to a Baptist “Church” but a Baptist “Ecclesiastical Community”.
I have no problem electing a principled prolife Mormon Conservative.
That excludes Romney but in principle we can elect a Mormon.
johnno, as an atheist, I don’t want religious dogma in my government. Taking away birth control, meat on Friday, beer on Sunday, is fine for you but not me. You are right. I agree it is an armistice between religious/secular and science/theology. Uneasy coexistence with an eventual winner.
@rover I think John Kennedy put misgivings about a Catholic President to rest. I shudder to think of what might have happened had anyone else been in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Think what our Catholic politicians, with all their newfound acceptance since JFK, might have accomplished if they had been GOOD Catholics.
The last time I checked, Ron Paul believes in fighting abortion on a state-by-state basis. There are some issues that are so paramount to both sides disputing them that they have to be settled on a national basis, i.e., Congressional legislation and/or a ruling by the Supreme Court…which will no doubt precipitate yet more attempts to settle the issue by Congress by its decision to, or not, to amend the Constitution one way or another. Yes, it’s circular, and appears at first to be enormously time-and-energy consuming.Such is the nature of great moral issues to be settled.
Just as slavery dealt with the freedom of human beings, (and of course, matters of their life or death given the awful severity of punishments and ill-treatment many slaves received at the hands of their owners, and their owners even crueler overseers) and eventually had to be settled on a national, i.e., Federal, level ... so too must abortion be as well. Pro-abortion rights women will say, “Wait a minute, why are women in X state enjoying more rights than those in Y?” Legally, it’s a fair question to ask, however offensive it seems to Catholics on grounds of faith and morals. We live in a secular nation and have to accept the system as a whole for what it is and learn to live within it without compromising our values.
There’s a point where respect for states rights meets the greater good of maintaining national unity of law and respect for it. Otherwise we’ll invite chaos or a perpetually simmering pot full of regionally inspired left over woes and “unsettled matters.” Don’t believe me? Check out the rhetoric of some Dixie politicians today. You can start with SC’s Gov. Nikki Haley. She’s got a big love affair with the 10th Amendment and doesn’t “talk smack” against nullification (when it comes to Obamacare) like she does when it comes to respecting organized labor.
Let’s also recognize the fact that Ron Paul comes from a VERY pro-State’s Rights State, Texas. He doesn’t want to give Rick Perry any more “advantage” in that nutcase area than Perry already (rightfully) claimed for himself with his “secesh talk” over Obamacare, too.
“Why Is Chuck Colson Sweeping Mormonism Under the Rug?”
Simple. Karma has come around and the GOP is facing the Frakenstein it created when it became the “party of god” by making “faith” a campaign issue (e.g. Rev Wright as the “wrong” kinda pastor, big prayer rallies, pray in schools as an wedge issue…) and tapped into the evangelical political christian right as a core strategy.
Well guess what - the tribal nature of religious sects and identity is now working against them.
Guess what the dominant tribes in GOP actually care about this and the business interests don’t. Romney is their candidate.
The dude should have just converted to some acceptable sect and been done with it.
Just what I would expect from someone writing on this site… Misleading information about the Mormon Church and bashing things you obviously know nothing about… I understand that there are those who may be distressed that many of those who convert to Mormonism are ex Catholics… but Whoes fault is that?? Maybe if you mudslingers would try TEACHING the Caticism and giving catholic converts a solid grounding maybe the rate of loss would be less! So long as you can get people to your way of thinking thru mis information and/or out right liess- you are an embaressment to the very idea of Journalism and before you contine your bashing of Mormons may I point out one thing that ALL Christians SHOULD know… Judge not lest you be JUDGED… You are intitled to your own opinion but stop showing your ignorance- it is embarassing!!
Glenn Beck is now stating more and more publicly that he is a Mormon, a fully committed Mormon. I knew he was. I believe he had been Catholic. Beck is a man who researches everything he cares about - everything! If he researched Mormonism and still is fully committed to their teachings, then he should state publicly what are those teachings he believes in, just as Catholics state their belief through the Creed. What worries me is that those who know little about their own Catholic faith, hearing Beck and others promiment people declare that they are Mormon Christians who believe in Jesus will be more receptive to Mormons when they come to their homes to evangelize. Beck needs to say how and what Mormons believe regarding Jesus, how and what do they believe about the Virgin Mary, how and whata they believe regarding God the Father…Joseph Smith excoriated all Christians who came before him, he is not in line with the Founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ…Smith usurped the position of Jesus. I would vote for Romney over Obama any day - but at the same time, the beliefs held by Mormons need to be made public and public figures like Romney and Beck should stand and say clearly that indeed, this IS what we believe it…
Okay, okay.
Everyone agrees that, given the choice between an atheist president who selects pro-choice Supreme Court candidates and a Catholic president who selects pro-life Supreme Court candidates, the latter is preferable.
(Everyone who is party to this conversation, I mean. Carknedge may hop on the short bus to another forum.)
But that’s because the choice is easy. What about when the choice is hard? Given the choice between an atheist pro-lifer (hey, the exist, however rarely) and, say, Nancy Pelosi (God forbid!), who’s the better choice, then?
For my money, we should weigh objective harms involving innocent lives more heavily than the harms done by confusing the populace about religious matters. I grant that we should not confuse folk if we can avoid it; on the other hand, they could be less confused if they’d just take God and their eternal destiny seriously enough to skip American Idol one night in favor of reading the Early Church Fathers.
So, given a choice between Obama and Romney, I go with Romney.
And as for the GOP nomination? There, I find reasons other than his Mormonism to prefer other candidates over Romney; the Mormonism just adds weight to those arguments.
But in the end I pray that God gives us the nominee, and the next president, that we need most, not the one we deserve most.
R.C.: Everyone here does not agree. As an Athiest, I would want a “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” constitutional Justice.
Grindael: Kennedy did a great job as president BUT, he promised that he would not follow the Pope to get the job, and he barely beat Nixon. I think he would be called horrible things i.e. Pelosi is vocally flogged here as a Catholic, if he were still alive. Those complaining about Ted getting a mass at his funeral is a good example of how JFK would have been treated.
Rover Serton:
I meant no rudeness towards you. I should have said, “Everyone who is a Catholic or an otherwise reasonably orthodox Christian.”
I was careless about that because—and this may sound cold-shoulder-y of me, but please give me a moment to explain—I didn’t really think any non-Christian had any reason to participate in that part of the conversation. “Everyone” meant “everyone who’s participating in the relevant part of the conversation.”
What I mean by “the relevant part of the conversation” is: The part concerned with not confusing the populace in general about what is and is not authentic Christianity; that which is in accord with the “faith delivered once for all to the apostles.”
Now, being an atheist, I don’t suppose you give a frog’s fat fanny about any of that. You suppose that whatever Jesus of Nazareth taught those eleven guys was, apart from whichever moral judgments you personally agree with, a lot of unicorn flatulence. So for you, it’s not really a pressing issue whether Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christadelphians get lumped in with Christians generally, despite the way their views are in contradiction to “the apostolic deposit of faith.” You may or may not know what the difference between a Mormon and a Christian understanding of God is; but it doesn’t rock your world either way. You would never worry that you were risking your own ability to invite guests to your thirty billionth birthday party by being casual about such distinctions.
But Christians not only have reason to make the distinction, but reason to think it important that other Christians be able to make the distinction. This makes the conversation about Romney (as opposed to, say, Cain or Perry) a discussion mainly for those armed with the relevant Scripture passages and early Patristic writings, who really believe in “the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.”
“Everyone” in that group, the group for which the conversation was relevant, will naturally take the view I attributed to them. But not, as you correctly noted, everyone who happens to stop by and read the conversation.
Anyhow, that’s way too many words of explanation. In the end, it boils down to: Sorry, you’re right, here’s what I was thinking when using the word “everyone,” but I meant no rudeness to you.
By the way, I would want a “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” Constitutional justice, also. I just happen to have particular convictions about treating all humans as fully human from conception to natural death; I don’t want anyone, no matter their current developmental stage or consciousness, getting treated like a waste product. So I prefer my judges and lawyers and other influential persons to take the same view.
I’d say the same whether the group in question were pre-born children or senile adults or Jews or Gypsies or folks of African ancestry: If he has unique human DNA, is maintaining homeostasis and converting energy, and has ever or may someday smile at a family member, I don’t want the folks behind the government’s compulsory power thinking of him as an “unperson.” The folks of African ancestry at least got the three-fifths clause; the unborn don’t get even that much recognition.
Fortunately a lot of atheists feel the same way as I do; 20th century experience with totalitarian regimes makes us justly twitchy about anyone proclaiming that so-and-so “doesn’t qualify as fully human.” But if an atheist jurist should happen to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, about the humanity of all persons, and is a good faithful interpreter of the Constitution as intended by its authors, why, then: I’d be happy to have him a Justice.
A final note: Your remark about Kennedy, in which you mention Pelosi, was addressed to Grindael, not me. But perhaps I can take a crack at it?
Some remarks about Pelosi (and Ted and possibly JFK had he lived longer) are simply nasty and inappropriate. I make no excuse for those; I hope and believe I’m not responsible for any of them.
But please keep in mind that not all remarks about Pelosi et alia which criticize them are unjust, and that some things which you might interpret as vindictive nastiness are actually prompted by genuine concern for them or for other persons.
One of the doctrines of Christianity, given by St. Paul to the Corinthians, is that a person who partakes of Holy Communion unworthily (in a state of grave sin, or in willful disbelief, or with casual disregard for the importance of the act) may “drink condemnation on themselves.” Paul even says to the folks in Corinth, “for this reason some of you are sick, and some have even died.”
Now for Ms. Pelosi to, as she does, publicly advocate for legal abortion is a grave sin. It is on par with publicly advocating genocide; it is horrifying in a fashion which ranks up there with those nasty cover-ups of child-molestation by some priests. It therefore endangers the soul of the person who does it, and any compassionate Catholic with a shred of concern for Ms. Pelosi would not want her receiving the Eucharist in such a state, and possibly “drinking condemnation upon herself.”
Moreover, in the public defense of her views, Ms. Pelosi has on occasion mis-stated the teaching of the Church and possibly thereby misled others. It was important that the bishops correct any mis-impression. When her bishop did so, you doubtless saw some folks here and elsewhere celebrating. Were they celebrating a smackdown of Ms. Pelosi? Well, I’m afraid some of them probably were…but others, whom you might not easily distinguish from the first crowd at a quick glance, were celebrating because (for a change) a bishop had done a good job clarifying what Catholic belief really was, how important it was, and thus helped alleviate some of the shoddy catechesis some Catholics have sadly received over the last fifty years or so.
The bit about a funeral Mass for Ted was (in my view) of less importance, but falls under the same heading: Ought the clergy of the church give the impression that they’re celebrating the public life of a vividly pro-choice Catholic politician; that is to say, celebrating not his good intentions or his gregariousness or such things, but celebrating, to put it precisely, the very part of his life in which he was repeatedly not a good Catholic, on the topic where it mattered most? There was again concern that if the man must have a Mass, and not just a private one but something of a big occasion, that it should be done in such a way that it didn’t give the poorly-catechized the wrong idea.
Jimmy I agree with you that a candidates religion is and should be fair game for individuals to decide on. And I agree with your assessment of the theological problems with Mormonism. But can you please next write about why mormonism makes a candidate unsuitable. I think I get why I shouldn’t vote for a muslim or an atheist. But why does Romney’s polytheism disqualify him as chief executive and commander in chief? He seems competent, and the few areas I disagree with him on do not seem related to his faith. Thanks.
R.C.: Exellent reply. My concerns as a voter are much like yours but from a secular vs doctrine difference. When a fundamentalist thinks he can speed up armagedon, I have the right to be concerned. When Rick Santorum starts talking about restricting contraceptives, my “spider senses” start to tingle.
You are obviously an educated person. Why does the the ‘not give politicans communion’ only come up every election but the SCOTUS NEVER comes us. 6 Catholics, 5 needed to overturn Roe v Wade. The visual of the RCC threatening the Justices with withholding Communion would look really bad.
Religious people are fine, religious based laws aren’t.
Thanks for the well thought out reply.
Rover.
Rover Seaton:
I agree that when a “fundamentalist” (using the recent usage of the word rather than the original) “thinks he can speed up Armageddon” we all have reason to be concerned.
But I’m not sure why you mention it here; it’s a non-Christian view, certainly non-Catholic. I’m not aware of any largish group of Christians, even among the less-sophisticated of our separated brethren, taking the view that anything we do on our own initiative could set the stage for the “end times.” The closest you get are the dispensationalists who’re happy about the founding of Israel in 1948 because it seemed to set the stage for having a large number of Jews in the Promised land; but that having been done, nothing else that can be influenced by human initiative remains.
Now as I understand it, the “twelver” branch of Shia Islam takes the view that the end-times can be sped up or delayed by what men do: If one creates a sufficiently cataclysmic jihadist conflagration, the Mahdi appears and Islam sweeps away all the infidels in a final worldwide battle. Good reason to be concerned about the Ayatollahs’ nuclear program and Ahmadinejad’s penchant for referring to Israel as a “one bomb state,” I suppose.
But I think, on this point, folks sometimes misunderstand the dispensationalists, in their myriad varieties (including the kinds of anti-Catholic folk who endorsed Rick Perry). The premillennialists (of “Left Behind” fame) would have to substantially rewrite their doctrine before they’d be able to get the notion that by causing some kind of ruckus, they could speed up the return of Christ. A small minority of them occasionally make predictions (like that poor Harold Camping dupe) but in the aftermath of those predictions failing, it’s never “what did I fail to do?” but “how is it I got my calculations wrong?” And then the majority of them come clucking and wagging their fingers and saying, “You doofus! What part of ‘No man knows the day our the hour’ did you not understand?”
As for Rick Santorum and the possibility of governmental restriction of contraceptives: Well, that makes me twitchy, too. Despite his being orthodox Catholic, pro-life, and probably a quite decent family man, I’m not confident he’s temperamentally suited to the office.
And, despite the fact I agree with the Church’s teaching on contraceptives, I don’t think that they should be outlawed. Abortion and legal sale of contraceptives are very different kinds of things, I think. In the one case a person is killed, and of course the first duty of government is to defend the inalienable rights of the governed; failing to do that is an abdication of duty. But voluntary contraceptive use, while immoral, involves no such assault; the harm is consensual. Rick Santorum fails to make that distinction between that which is immoral in Natural Law and that which can justly be made illegal. Inasmuch as government’s enforcement of the Criminal Code requires the use or threat of violence against offenders, the set of all wrongs which are of a type meriting outlawing is smaller than the set of all wrongs. I suspect that his fellow Catholics on SCOTUS would quickly help him make that distinction should such a law somehow ever pass both houses and get his signature.
But this is all irrelevant: Santorum won’t get the nomination anyhow, let alone win election, for other reasons entirely…not least because he was fatally wounded by the gay community’s nasty redefining of his name. (Poor guy.)
Re: Withholding Communion from the Justices: I think that could happen, were the Catholics on the Court to have an opportunity to rule on this topic, and they ruled in a fashion contrary to the teachings of the Church. But they haven’t had anything like such an opportunity; SCOTUS can’t just reverse a ruling without a case being brought that requires reconsideration of the ruling. So the test is yet to be taken.
It’d be another matter, of course, if one of the Catholics on the Court were to give a public speech firmly contradicting some dogma of the Church. Then I think you’d find that particular Justice would receive a private call from his/her bishop. It’s barely possible one or more of them already have, but I doubt it, inasmuch as making a speech which gives away how a judge would rule on a case is something judges, let alone Justices, don’t do: They’d have to recuse themselves when the case came up, if they did. So they keep their views somewhat guarded, and thus are in no danger of being disciplined by an Apostolic Successor for bringing scandal to the faithful. A public disciplining (like that received by Ms. Pelosi) generally requires a public scandal (like that perpetrated by Ms. Pelosi), and I don’t think the Justices have said anything that could qualify.
Nixon was not a believer, the “tapes” evidence him a bigot, that said history on Nixon should rightfully be superlatively.
Romney, poor man writes a book, then in debates contradicts himself I say that as a belligerent of the first rank, while parting hair on left, a belligerent, a great label.
The record will evidence personal effect, on Nixon’s waffle on Viet Nam….
not the only one
Sic Transit Gloria
Electing a Mormon is different than electing a Catholic like Kennedy. The suggestion that JFK obeyed the Vatican in all things was preposterous. A Catholic is obligated to submit to the Pope in matters of dogma. A faithful Mormon is expected to submit to the “prophet” in Salt Lake City in all things, from your clothes to what you drink to the sort of music you listen to. Years ago a Mormon coworker of mine told me that there is an unofficial prophecy or expectation among Mormons (i.e. at least those in Utah/Southern Idaho) that at the end of time the USA will experience an existential threat but will be saved by Mormons in high public office. This concerns me more than all the leftist smears that Reagan or GWB would be motivated by religion to usher in Armageddon. Also, I know firsthand how non-Mormons are treated in places where Mormons are the majority. If things ever got to that point nationally, I would leave the country.
Aside from all that, in the bigger picture things have continued along the same path since JFK’s time whether it’s Republicans or Democrats in the White House. These other issues distract people from that fact. Voting Republican thinking it will put an end to abortion is pure illusion.
John Jay - Original Chief Justice: In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Could someone please explain why Catholic priests are not castrated when they are ordained? As they are supposed to be celibate, they have no legitimate use for testicles anyway. That way,they would stop buggering little boys.
Actions are what matter for officeholders, but actions are hard to predict, which is why it is sensible to examine beliefs as predictive variables. In that connection it seems to me that it one’s religious convictions can be relevant to the extent they either (i) contain doctrines that have peculiar policy implications (such as the Armageddon belief mentioned above) or (ii) embody moral principles which can be measured against natural law. I am not aware of Mormons having any issues pertaining to (i) and my sense is that the professions of Mormons in regard to (ii) compare favorably to most Christians.
I find the Jimmy Akin article most distressing.
First of all, I agree totally with Chuck Colson. Religion should not be a test for office.
Second, there was no furor at all raised in 2000 when a guy ran for VP whose religion denies the divinity of Christ.
Third: the Weekly Standard contains a page devoted to “Parody” each week, and a few weeks ago they cited a news item about the Mormon-religion question being raised, and then proceeded to imagine a NYTimes page in 1931 that denounced FDR for his weird religion (Episcopalian); the criticisms therein applied equally to Catholicism. I think everybody ought to read that Weekly Standard parody, so as to understand just how ridiculous it is to take a candidate’s religion into account.
Unfortunately, the attitude displayed in the Jimmy Akin column will likely cause many Evangelicals to stay home, thus helping to re-elect Barack Obama.
About a year ago, Ralph Reed and James Carville were being interviewed together on a TV show, and the interviewer asked if Mormonism was a Christian religion. Ralph Reed fidgeted and mumbled and ducked the question; it was obvious that he didn’t want to speak his answer [“no”]. James Carville immediately said “sure it’s Christian—it’s called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” Now recall that Carville is probably the worst snake-in-the-grass that ever worked for Clinton. He (and the Democrat machine) would like to run against a Mormon, because they can exploit the prejudice of Evangelicals.
Opposition to Romney on religious grounds is tantamount to handing the Democrats a big advantage. I oppose Romney because of some really dumb positions he’s taken on energy & environmental issues; his hobnobbing with Harvard Prof John Holdren (Obama’s “energy czar”) is far more worrisome to me than anything having to do with religion.
By the way, Akin would probably have objected to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and several others in our history. And as his own article hints, he surely would have opposed Kennedy in 1960. I opposed Kennedy on other grounds. In fact, if you examine Akin’s reasons for disliking Mormonism today, you’ll find parallels with the reasons his co-religionists opposed Catholics in the distant past. I find it amusing that in 2004 most practicing Catholics opposed Kerry because of his pro-abortion stance; that shows how much the ballgame has changed.
Colson is right; Akin is wrong. I hope that Colson succeeds in keeping the Evangelical vote focused on the important issues of this campaign ... the foremost of which is the inalienable right to life, especially of the unborn. If Obama gets re-elected, Akin will share in the blame.
—
Tom Sheahen
“He (and the Democrat machine) would like to run against a Mormon, because they can exploit the prejudice of Evangelicals.”
Actually that is brillantly simple for the Obama campaign as it turns the GOP’s Southern Strategy (Nixon/Atwater) on its head and and forces the GOP to eat its own religous pandering (about time). The GOP has been exploting the evangelicals for 20 years. Its THEIR Frakenstein - they MADE it. Of course the dems will use it - the GOP has been doing the samething for years. Recall the Rev. Wright smear that ran 24/7.
LOL.
Please tell Jimmy that I would rather belong to a cult than an international child sex ring.
Carknedge, aren’t you a paradigm of ecumenical goodwill to all.
“Second, as voters we are to choose the most competent people to be God’s magistrates to do justice, restrain evil, and preserve order. That’s what the Bible calls for. And in our country, where we have the precious liberty of choosing our leaders, we are responsible for picking competent men and women. See Jethro’s advice to Moses in Exodus 18. While choosing men to help him judge the people, Moses was to select first of all competent men. Those men were also to be godly - that is, men of good moral standing and character.”
_
## Which is precisely why the USA, seeing itself as a Protestant Nation, was for a long time not keen on allowing one of those dreadful Papists to be President. By your argument, many Protestants are simply being God-fearing Christians who want the US to be free of the rule of idolaters and enemies of God, and therefore would rather catch leprosy than have a Catholic, Mormon, or other cultist and heathen, as President. By your argument, a great many complaints of anti-Catholicism are valueless, because those who make them are doing no more than you say people should. Many don’t want the unBiblical chaos of Romanism (as they see it) - any more than they want what they see as the unBiblical chaos of Mormonism. If the US wants a President, ISTM that the election should ignore the candidate’s theology, and consider only their social ideas. Whether a candidate believes in transubstantiation, the prophetic office of Joseph Smith, re-incarnation, the coming of the Mahdi, justification by faith alone, in thousands of gods, or in the complete non-existence of any whatsoever, should - in the opinion of this outsider - be of no relevance compatred to the moral character, proposed policies, and record of the candidate. If the UK had to have a President, I would rather vote for a lesbian satanist with a social conscience than for a white male heterosexual Catholic of unimpeachable orthodoxy who favoured taking from the poorest to enrich the obscenely wealthy.
“Second, as voters we are….men of good moral standing and character.”
_
## Which is precisely why the USA, seeing itself as a Protestant Nation, was for a long time not keen on allowing one of those dreadful Papists to be President. By your argument, many Protestants are simply being God-fearing Christians who want the US to be free of the rule of idolaters and enemies of God, and therefore would rather catch leprosy than have a Catholic, Mormon, or other cultist and heathen, as President. By your argument, a great many complaints of anti-Catholicism are valueless, because those who make them are doing no more than you say people should. Many don’t want the unBiblical chaos of Romanism (as they see it) - any more than they want what they see as the unBiblical chaos of Mormonism. If the US wants a President, ISTM that the election should ignore the candidate’s theology, and consider only their social ideas. Whether a candidate believes in transubstantiation, the prophetic office of Joseph Smith, re-incarnation, the coming of the Mahdi, justification by faith alone, in thousands of gods, or in the complete non-existence of any whatsoever, should - in the opinion of this outsider - be of no relevance compatred to the moral character, proposed policies, and record of the candidate. If the UK had to have a President, I would rather vote for a lesbian satanist with a social conscience than for a white male heterosexual Catholic of unimpeachable orthodoxy who favoured taking from the poorest to enrich the obscenely wealthy.
Posted by Carknedge on Wednesday, Oct 19, 2011 3:28 PM (EDT):
*
“Jeffress says that the RCC is “satanic” and “derived from a Babylonian mystery cult.””
*
## Pastor Jeffress is very ill-informed in making that last remark. Since the devil cannot be tracked or interviewed, it is equally possible that the pastor is led astray by the devil. That’s the problem with this accusation - it cannot be proved or disproved. Unlike an accusation that the pastor is ill-informed; for his assertion about a “Babylonian mystery cult” is demonstrably untrue. Why are some Evangelicals so obsessed with the devil, for crying out loud ?
“It’d be another matter, of course, if one of the Catholics on the Court were to give a public speech firmly contradicting some dogma of the Church. Then I think you’d find that particular Justice would receive a private call from his/her bishop.”
*
That kind of possibility is precisely why religion has no part in politics. Churchmen have no business whatever putting pressure on their co-religionists when the latter are taking into account the social life of third parties not under the jurisdiction of the churchmen. Catholic bishops have no more business to lean on politicians & law-makers, than the King of Belgium, a Catholic, has to meddle in the government of the US. How can the US be lawfully governed by its elected representatives, if these are likely to be at the mercy of pushy men of God of the religions of the representatives ? If imams or rabbbis or shamans wants to shape US policy, let them be elected - and the same applies to bishops and other clerics of the various Christian bodies. But to have influence from a bunch of unelected non-representative churchmen taking it on themselves to frustrate the will of the people, is to make such people the enemies of their country. The authority of the bishops over Catholic in public life ends the moment that those Catholics act as the elected representatives of the people. Europe has had to for ages put up with over-mighty churchmen interfering and meddling where they have no business to meddle - whatever excuse there was for that, no longer exists. The best reason for keeping churchmen out of politics is their lust for interfering. No country needs government by ecclesiastics - certainly not the US.
I think Carknedge is awesome That boy makes me laugh out loud.
He reminds me of the drunk skinheads I met when I went on a mission-trip to help the gypsies in central Romania. There was a black woman in our group, whom they spotted me speaking with at one point; so they came weaving up to me, spilling beer as they came, to ask if I was a “ni**er-lover.” I was flabbergasted: I didn’t think anybody said that any more, unless they were acting a movie about Jim Crow. I started laughing at them and they got all offended and made their second mistake, whipping out a paperback book written by some American white supremacist or other (I think it may have been David Duke) and waving it in my face, talking about how true it was. I told them that in America we make fun of people like that because their family trees have no branches. They didn’t get it. I explained that meant that people like that are inbred bucktoothed morons; they still couldn’t follow me, either because their English wasn’t much better than my Romanian, or because of the beer. So I pointed to the picture of the man on the back of the book and said as clearly and distinctly as I could that Americans like to make jokes about this man because they say he gets married to his sisters and has babies with them. I think that got through; they got mad again and yelled a lot and eventually walked away.
Carknedge reminds me of those red-eyed skinheads, God bless ‘em. They have their heads full of a bunch of silly stuff that isn’t so, their ability to make more than the grossest of distinctions when processing information is limited either by choice or congenitally, and it makes them feel powerful to say outrageous things loudly. They see their audience discomfited and believe they’ve scored a point, not understanding that the discomfiting is better described as irritation at having one’s conversation unconstructively interrupted by some dullard’s barbaric yawp.
Anyway, I think maybe I want to publish a collection of quotes from Carknedge…perhaps side-by-side with quotes from a KKK Grand Dragon or someone like that, as a game, to see if readers can tell who’s who. Loads of fun for the whole family.
With a little prayer and a whole lot of luck, just maybe this whole debate/discussion will be put to rest if Herman Cain receives the nomination. Let there be no doubt, if my only options are Romney v Obama, I am punching the Romney ticket. However, just maybe we will not have to decide between the lesser of two evils. With Herman Cain, we know he firmly stands on orthodox Christian principles and beliefs, as well as conservative pro-American values. There are more than enough Catholic and Evangelical Christians to determine this election if we would just unify and throw our support behind the same candidate. Unfortunately though, too many of us that claim to be a Catholic Christian just will not vote for a person that holds to the same primary beliefs that we do. I will never understand why that is. I do not understand how a Catholic could in good conscious vote for someone that they know oppose everything the Church and the Magisterium holds dear. I hope that everyone that claims to be a Catholic or even a non-Catholic Christian realizes the decisions they make in this life are going to have consequences in the next life. I hope they realize that one-day they will actually stand before the throne of God and will have to give account for those decisions; even that vote they made. When the Lord asks, “Why did you vote for this candidate who supports abortion, when you could have voted for this candidate that opposes it?” I hope that person can come up with a better reason than, “Well Lord, I voted for them because they promised to help me and my union buddies have more bargaining power and they promised to stick it to those rich people on Wall Street.” So selfish and so sickening!
Can we put one stupid thing to rest. There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, in the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints about “getting your own planet.” In fact, having been a member for over 50 years now, I can say that images of the celestial kingdom (the highest heaven where all Mormons want to end up) are all about being together with everyone: all your friends and extended family in one great light filled community/world. Where is heaven? Who knows. It’s probably not on clouds. But my own world? Are you kidding me? I have never heard this preached or ever heard anyone say a positive thing about this concept. It is just a convenient straw man to mock.
There are an awful lot of idiot experts out there flapping their gums and saying nothing.
Straw man? LOL. Hardly. Don’t blame us for Joseph Smith’s rhetoric, dude. Go read the primary sources before you go all self-righteous. And Mormon doctrine is not all about us all being together. Far from it. The secret temple ceremonies are all about families being exalted above non-temple blessed families. From what a missionary told me, I’ll be far from the Celestial Kingdom where you are hoping to land. Unless someone baptizes my dead behind and I accept the gesture in another life. But hey, it’s traditional Christians making the offensive suggestions, right? Are you kidding me. Really, try some clarity. Fifty years in denial doesn’t make yo a very credible witness.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy calm down now ... I for one anyway sure would rather of had the Mormon Mitt Romney in the Senate for all those years instead of the baby killing machine that was the “Catholic” Teddy Kennedy. Jimmy how can we Catholics say anything whatsoever about Mitt Romney; who after all has never pretended to embrace the Catholic Faith when we had Bishops attending the Teddy Kennedy funeral and thereby affirming his decades of pro-death politics. In a perfect world the scales would fall from Mitt’s eyes and he would embrace the Catholic Faith AND also; unlike the “Catholic” Kennedy’s and the “Catholic” Pelosi and the “Catholic” Biden’s et alia actually work to limit and ultimately undo the treachery of Roe vs. Wade etc. Never was it truer to look for the beam in our own Catholic eye before removing the mote in Mitt’s Mormon eye. It will forever be tallied up to the shame of the Catholic Church here in America that “Catholic” politicians got a “pass” and still get a “pass” while non-Catholics get a moral microscope when the non-Catholic’s actual stance on key life issues is orders of magnitude better than the so called Catholic Pol’s who after all are supposed to know better and should if the hierarchy was doing it’s job be publicly corrected early and often so as to provide “teaching moments” for politicians of all stripes. The faithful are rightfully confused by the illogical way that the murder that is abortion is treated in a low priority way by the Bishops when the politician involved is a Catholic. I for one would have zero zip Nada compunction in voting for a Mormon Mitt Romney over a “Catholic” Biden and “Muslim” Obama.
It is sad to hear formerly respected moral leaders like Chuck Colson and rev Franklin Graham throw out the prolife profamily essentials of our votes as moral people, to embrace flip flop mitt romney, who in the videos on here has clearly shown himself to be dedicated to lifetime roevwade position as he explained in tears why he has always been, and will always be proabortionist eventhough he was supposedly personally “prolife”! http://patriotstatesman.com/2011/04/obama-shocks-the-republicans-by-picking-romney-for-his-running-mate-in-2012/
To the mormons trying to equate early Orthodox teaching on Theosis with the cult of mormonism, theosis is transformation to become more like Christ. It is NOT the same as foolish mormon doctrines blaspheming God’s NAME to say that God has had many wives with children Jesus and Lucifer and that one day mitt romney will also have the wives of nonmormons to do as he pleases in ruling planets as The equal to the Holy Trinity :_(! Here is one discussion on Theosis: http://youtu.be/9kMhvqwbx_M
Thankfully several prominent Christian leaders from across the country have signed on to lead the official pastors and leaders faith coalition for Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign. I know that many including myself who are lifelong Republican voters will leave the party if proabortinist prohomosexual rino is nominated especially by only 27% of the voters while the conservatives like Newt Gingrich and others are still in the race to win.
Today Pastor Tim LaHaye, writer for the famous Left Behind series, has endorsed Newt Gingrich for president and will be joining the Coalition as a national co-chair along with Christian market researcher, George Barna, Dr. Jim Garlow, the California pastor behind the Proposition 8 Battle, Congressman J.C. Watts, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.
http://www.newt.org/news/newt-2012-announces-faith-leaders-coalition
I resonate with what Dennis Prager has said on the subject: “I don’t care if somebody believes that the Earth is located on the back of a turtle that gives directives on how to live life; if that turtle gives that person the same directives as my God of the book of Exodus gives me, I will happily vote for him (over) people who have my identical theology, but who I share virtually no values with.”
Of course, Dennis Prager, is (gasp) Jewish so some may think he has nothing to bring to the conversation either.
Christian friends, let’s be smarter than this. What matters with our elected officials is not their theology—but their values, and the actions that come from those values. To say otherwise is to be guilty of what Christians have been accused of ... wanting a theocracy. And that is not Biblical my friends.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.