Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012 | Uncategorized | 31 Comments
If the desperation of the left is any indication, the 2012 election of Mitt Romney to the US presidency has the same air of inevitability that Barack Obama’s election had four years ago:
I was on a conference call yesterday regarding intelligence gathered from a highly placed source that liberal Obama surrogates are planning to target Evangelical mega-church parking lots with bigoted anti-Mormon flyers the final weekend before the election in key battleground states like Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
Mega-church pastors are being notified to have parking lot attendants be on the lookout for such a lit drop. But please forward this post to all pastors of both Protestant and Catholic churches, particularly in battleground states.
The GOP’s all-important social conservatives may be getting more comfortable with Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith – but liberals are increasingly wary about the candidate’s religion in the run-up to November, according to a new study.
The study found anti-Mormon attitudes have increased since Romney’s 2008 presidential bid and are highest among liberal and non-religious voters….
The study found attitudes about Mormonism among Evangelicals has largely remained unchanged since 2007 – when 37% said they were “less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate for president,” compared with 33% this year.
However, that sentiment among non-religious voters increased from 21% to 41% over roughly the same period.
Among liberal voters, 43% said they were less likely to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate in 2012, compared with 28% in 2007.
Then there’s Andrew Sullivan who takes shrieking hysteria to a whole new level.
I raise this because it is a fact that Mitt Romney belonged to a white supremacist church for 31 years of his life, went on a mission to convert Christians and Jews and others to this church, which retained white supremacy as a doctrine until 1978 – decades after Brown vs Board of Education, and a decade after the end of the anti-miscegenation laws.
Romney’s response to the white supremacism of his church was to point to his mother’s and father’s secular support for civil rights for African-Americans, which ties in with Mormon founder Joseph Smith’s abolitionist convictions. And there is no question that Mitt Romney’s parents were heroic civil rights Republicans in the secular sphere – in a party that had not yet become the South’s racial plaything. And I do not doubt Mitt’s story about weeping upon hearing that the “ongoing revelation” had now changed. But all this evades the key question: what did the Romneys do to confront their own church’s non-secular position on the inherent spiritual inferiority of blacks? Nothing, so far as I can find. If any reader can find some, please send it to me and I’ll post it.
There’s nothing in Romney’s answer that violates the old Mormon doctrine – still there in the Book of Mormon – that for some reason, people with black skin suffer some kind of inherited curse that will only be lifted after everyone else has been saved in the hereafter.
Notice also the lack of any apparent remorse, or criticism of the church’s previous position. This is a church that can take a position rooted in its own Scripture and just one day say it’s over and let’s move on. Even white supremacism! And people still don’t see how Mormonism – its utilitarian use of truth, its studied mainstream all-American appeal, its refusal to be completely transparent to outsiders, and its insistence on never having to account for itself – isn’t integral to Mitt Romney’s personality and beliefs. Romney will no more let outsiders look at his finances than the LDS church will allow non-Mormons inside their Temples after they have been consecrated.
Look: every religion has these stains in its past. My own church committed the Inquisition and, in my view, began the demonization of the Jewish people that killed and terrified and marginalized so many for centuries, leading to the Holocaust. Its continued systematic discrimination against women is a scandal. Its criminal rape of children makes it the most flawed current Christian institution on earth. And if you asked a Catholic candidate whether it was wrong for the Church to have treated Jews as cursed and sub-human for so long, I cannot imagine any Catholic politician not saying yes. Unequivocally. Is there a mite of evidence that Mitt Romney ever challenged the white supremacism in his religion and its active racism while it was in existence and he was still a missionary and member for 31 years of his life?
Do I have problems with Mormonism? Profound problems and not just spiritual ones; the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet is too absurd to even remotely entertain. Do I consider Mormons to be Christians? Not as I understand both the meaning of that word and Mormon “theology.”
Who am I voting for for United States president in a couple of weeks? Mitt Romney.
Why? Because we’re not selecting a presiding bishop in November, we’re selecting this country’s First Magistrate. Religiously-speaking, Mitt Romney’s Mormonism neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, as Jefferson put it.
You don’t know a single thing about this country, do you, Sully?
And while we’re making people account for the mistakes of their churches, Know-Nothing, where is the evidence that Barack Obama ever called out the racialist ravings of Jeremiah Wright, a man he spent slightly over twenty years listening to? And if you think the Catholic church treats women and, I assume, gays so scandalously, why don’t you attend an Episcopal church? Ordained women, gay bishops; you’d love it there.
You can always return to a Catholic church once Rome sees the error of its ways and turns itself Episcopalian. Unless, of course, this stuff doesn’t really bother you at all. Or you can’t face Obama’s defeat and your complete repudiation so you’re just posturing again in which case you really have no business lecturing anyone at all about what they should have told their church leadership back when they were younger.