- Share This Post
- submit
- 18
-
Sparkle (0)
Mitt Romney’s speech bored me. Then it made me angry and sometimes scared me. First, I was not surprised that the speech followed along safest lines – quote some patriots, make a comparison to a few beloved presidents, borrow others’ glory, throw in a reference to terrorism – but this one scared me –“Radical, violent Islam threatens to destroy us.” The wording is tricky, calculated – and if I were Muslim it would feel pointed at me. It doesn’t say “radicals in the middle east” or “terrorists who misuse Islam for their own ends.”. It says “Radical, violent Islam”.
Mitt tried to say that he wouldn’t put his Mormonism in the way of the law or “above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.” He also said he was entirely observant and proud of that. So he is going to be a Mormon and not be a Mormon. In no place did he address the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. He instead tried to align himself with the evangelical right. So there was no attempt made to make his faith more understandable. It was more an effort to say – “See? I am just like you and lots of politicians that you love.”
But that is not true. In the long run, it may not matter that it is not true, but it is still not true. Mormonism is both very different from mainline Christianity and very conservative. Obviously his belief in a conservative theology will inform his political decisions. How obvious is that? I have a liberal theology. Of course that influences my decisions. Yet what he said seemed to deny that reality in his life.
In a grab at the floundering evangelical/potential Huckabee vote, he came out in favor of religious displays on public property. He even referenced the joint presence of a menorah and a nativity. So would he be putting something special on the White House lawn for those Muslim (“Radical, violent Islam”) holidays that warrant display?
He later says – in the same spirit –
"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom, killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
There is something in that that troubles me, a sort of undercurrent that is saying that ALL Islam is bloodthirsty. This is scary stuff.
On the plus side, he seemed to be almost saying that because he was in a position for asking for religious tolerance, that he would support it for others. Well, OK. But then he started veering into the territory of “Christian Nation”. He didn’t go there – he didn’t say that this nation was founded by Christians for Christians. But he sent up smoke signals worthy of watching as the days pass. And he only spoke of a vision of America that included God-believers.
He is certainly clever, and certainly has a fine speechwriter. When he quoted from the Bible, it was from the Bible known by most Christians, not from The Book of Mormon, the book that Mormons believe supercedes the Bible.
He was not as open and available as I might have wished. He was not like a Catholic politician who said specifically and at some risk, he would have to step away from the church’s opposition to all abortions in order to support the law of the land. Romney just said over and over in a variety of ways that we shouldn’t worry about his active and heartfelt Mormonism. He’d be fine. Just fine. Slick and fine.
But that is just my opinion. I have read a lot of Mormon material – material about how the church historically treated African-Americans, about the belief that people with skin of color were given that skin as a sign of punishment, about women not worthy of being ordained, about gays being one step down the ladder from murderers in sin-severity. And I wonder, still, how that will effect Mitt Romney and America.
Terry at Webster’s Blogspot takes aim at Romney’s lack of historical accuracy.
Romney makes an inappropriate comparison between the persecution suffered by Pilgrim and Puritan dissenters in England, and the "persecution" suffered by the early Mormons at the hands of orthodox American Christians. I
