±«Óãtv

« Previous | Main | Next »

American religious "nutters"

Post categories:

William Crawley | 21:53 UK time, Tuesday, 4 December 2007

Tony Blair wouldn't talk about his faith because he was advised that the electorate might write him off as a "nutter". But in the United States, talking about faith is expected of major politicians. Unless, that is, you are Governor Mitt Romney, the first Mormon to run for the presidency. The Republican candidate's evasiveness in this interview on American television may well lose him votes from nervous evangelicals and committed Mormons. Don't ask me what it means to be a Mormon, he says. "There's a website ... what is it ... Mormon.org?"

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 12:10 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • wrote:

Unless, that is, you are Governor Mitt Romney, the first Mormon to run for the presidency. The Republican candidate's evasiveness in this interview on American television may well lose him votes from nervous evangelicals and committed Mormons.

You probably should have delayed posting this thread. Romney is scheduled to give a major speech on his "Mormonism" imminently.

Anyway since you have brought it up and introduced it with the unfortunate use of the term 'nutter' I will offer these thoughts.

IMHO the question of one's religion is not one of 'evasiveness'. It is an unacceptable question in the context or running for political office in the USA. We are supposed to have a separation of church and state and therefore these questions should be rejected out of hand in our political process.

If we subject Romney as a Mormon to a religious test who will be next? Do we reject a Muslim candidate, a Jew, a Buddhist, or God-forbid ;-) a Secular Humanist? To me such considerations will lead to some form of a 'belief' test in the American political process.

Personally I think the Blair approach is the correct one and it should be the standard here. Most people in Britain could easily have known what his religious leanings were - I did! He never hid which church/chapel he went to or when he attended a religious service. If people had wished to base their vote on a knowledge of his religious beliefs they could have done so.

Some people may base their vote on the baser instincts of their hearts - how many men will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is an agressive women or not vote for Barack Obama because of his race? Society can't change that aspect of our personal political thinking but we must operate the political process with the expectation that a candidate's gender, race, personal belief etc are not open for public discussion.

Having said that I should state that I am not a supporter of either Clinton, Obama, or Romney.

Regards,
Michael

  • 2.
  • At 08:41 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • nonplussed wrote:

Ideally, a candidate’s religion should not be an electoral issue. However, it does not seem possible to separate religion from politics when it is unclear just how much the politician is likely to entangle the two once in office. Look at Bush’s faith based initiatives, or his apparent appointment of God as Secretary of State for Defence.

The best description of the ideals of the American constitutional separation of church and state was the excellent and much quoted campaign speech by JFK. This, however, was made out of necessity rather than principle as there was much mistrust by Protestant voters of the possibility of America being run from Rome.

Similarly, Romney’s reticence is of a tactical nature, not a principled stand. Most of the other candidates are falling over themselves to establish their religious credentials, even the traditionally more circumspect Democrats. However, even if voters have since become comfortable with Catholics, Mormons are still not seen as proper Christians. The details of their beliefs seem all the wackier for being so newly minted, not to mention the recent racism and the comedy value of the magic underwear. Native American voters in particular might be interested to know just how strongly he considers them to be a cursed lost tribe of Israel. No wonder he’d rather keep things vague if he could.

There is also the rumour of a Mormon presidency fulfilling Mormon prophecy, there really should be no such ulterior motive. There is talk that Mormons pledge allegiance to the church above all else, even country. This seems like ample fodder for conspiracy theory and accusations of conflict of interest.

There should be no religious test for public office, but equally there should be no religious pandering to gain votes and no religious preferential treatment once in office. A politician’s faith can influence their values which can be communicated and assessed by voters of all faiths and none. It is more of a problem if it affects their view of reality – willingness to ban stem cell research due to the existence of souls or to teach kids that the universe is 6,000 years old. How can these not make religion a political issue?

Anyway, it seems the group most likely to fail the current religious test criterion are the atheists. Polls report them as being least likely to get support from American voters – way behind other unpopular minorities.

  • 3.
  • At 01:07 AM on 07 Dec 2007,
  • nonplussed wrote:

Justin Webb's blog has a video showing a TV evangelist concern trolling Mrs Romney.

/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/

Lots of pot vs. kettle attacks on Mormon beliefs. Ends with "Mrs Romney, stop lying and God bless you".

  • 4.
  • At 07:23 AM on 07 Dec 2007,
  • Sean Flaherty wrote:

I think it's great that America lives in a county that talks about God and doesn't shutter from it like a secular Europe. Many people are worried about Europe's growing faithless community- especially since Islam has been growing in the vacuum of empty churches. I would hate to think to live in a world where we couldn't talk about religion or encourage those to practice it. That's what is great about America.

  • 5.
  • At 08:09 AM on 09 Dec 2007,
  • tay wrote:

American religious nutters?
Now why would anyone think that?

"The American Taliban"

Randall Terry (Operation Rescue)
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

Rush Limbaugh
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
"If you commit a crime, you're guilty."*
"There is only one way to get rid of nuclear weapons... use them"

Ann Coulter
"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"

James Dobson (Focus on the Family)
"Those who control the access to the minds of children will set the agenda for the future of the nation and the future of the western world."

"State Universities are breeding grounds, quite literally, for sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), homosexual behavior, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, alcoholism, and drug abuse."
"Today's children... They're damned. They're gone."

Book burnings and gas ovens anyone?

This post is closed to new comments.

±«Óãtv iD

±«Óãtv navigation

±«Óãtv © 2014 The ±«Óãtv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.