Evaluating election rumors
With a flimsy platform and no strong candidate, Republicans are hoping to win the November election on whisper campaigns and character assassination. Let’s check out some of their claims.
No, Hillary Clinton did not defend the Black Panthers who killed and tortured Alex Rackley. Hillary Clinton was a student at that time, not an attorney or a politician. She attended the trial as a volunteer observer for the ACLU, but had no impact on the outcome. Like many students, she was concerned about whether the black defendants were receiving a fair trial, and she participated in protests calling for a change of venue.
No, people who oppose the Clintons do not meet an untimely demise. The “Clinton Body Count” is so preposterous that no reasonable person could entertain the idea. For a body-by-body debunking, see http://www.snopes.com/. The shorter version is: If Hillary Clinton had a 50-person hit list, wouldn’t the Republicans be all over that? She would certainly be sitting in jail for connections to even one murder.
No, Secret Service agents did not claim Hillary Clinton was rude and arrogant, mistreating her agents and even charging them rent. As early as 1993 Time Magazine reported a known political trick in which spurious Clinton stories were “leaked” to the press. Often these stories were attributed to anonymous Secret Service agents as a way to lend credibility to the false claim. As for rent, the Clintons are entitled to receive $1,100 per month for housing Secret Service agents in their Chappaqua, NY home – but they turned down the money.
No, Obama does not refuse to pledge the flag and yes, he has flags on his website. Obama has been videotaped pledging the flag. His website is red, white and blue (mostly blue.) The background centers on an eagle holding a shield and flag. His logo, shown multiple times on every page, is an interpretation of the American flag and the theme of hope (the sun rising over a field) all framed as a big O.
No, Obama does not attend a covertly Muslim church that excludes whites. Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). The membership of TUCC is predominantly black, and the church places great emphasis on honoring African heritage and promoting the idea that “black is beautiful.” However, all people are welcome at the church, which adheres to the theology of the United Church of Christ.
No, Obama did not take the oath of office by swearing on the Koran. That would be a strange thing for a Christian to do. Obama was sworn in on the Bible.
No, John Edwards did not cause the 2004 flu vaccine shortage. The urban legend states that John Edwards sued a pharmaceutical company on behalf of a man who contracted the flu after receiving the vaccine. Supposedly the threat of further litigation ensures that no pharmaceutical company in the Unite States will dare to make the flu vaccine. The legend claims that the 2004 flu vaccine shortage resulted from contamination of a flu vaccine facility in the UK. This one is false all the way around. John Edwards never litigated a flu case. Anyway, the flu vaccine is manufactured in the United States. It was a US facility that was shut down due to contamination, resulting in the shortage. The real reason few pharmaceutical companies produce flu vaccine is because the profit margin for flu vaccine is very slim.
What about the Republican candidates? Is there a whisper campaign against them? Every email I have received has been against a Democrat. Even searching for GOP candidate names along with “urban legend,” I came up with very few stories, all of which are substantiated by reputable media outlets.
Yes, Senator McCain supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. In 2006 and 2007, McCain joined with Ted Kennedy in supporting Senate bills that would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He also denounced and voted against an amendment designed to stop illegal immigrants from receiving social security benefits through identity fraud. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, which provided in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. Later he said he would have voted against his own legislation – but in fact he was absent when the vote was taken.
Yes, McCain is being swift-boated. There really is a group called Vietnam Veterans against John McCain. They claim that Senator McCain committed treason and does not deserve his medals because he gave the enemy information while he was being tortured as a POW. According to McCain’s own account, he did give the enemy information – some true and some false. For example, when asked to name the members of his squadron, he listed the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line. McCain is a war hero as far as I am concerned, but it is true that this group exists and that they insist otherwise.
Yes, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a cage strapped to the top of the car during a 12-hour journey to visit his parents. The 1983 misadventure was reported in the Boston Globe last June. Romney clarified that he attempted to shield the dog with some sort of makeshift windshield. The scared pooch developed diarrhea, so Romney stopped at a gas station and hosed down the dog, the carrier, and the back of the car. Romney’s campaign-trail response to pet-loving critics: “They’re not happy that my dog loves fresh air.”
Speaking of dogs, Snopes confirms that Mike Huckabee’s son was fired from his job as a Boy Scout Camp counselor after he killed a dog by hanging. John Bailey, then director of Arkansas state police, claims Huckabee refused to allow police to investigate whether the boy violated animal cruelty laws. Huckabee says that Bailey is just a disgruntled employee. Huckabee says the dog was mangy, emaciated, and threatening, and that his son acted out of compassion.
Yes, Huckabee had a prominent role in the release of a serial rapist in Arkansas. Worse, the decision to release Wayne Dumond 25 years early appears to be politically motivated. Dumond was convicted and incarcerated while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. One of the victims, a seventeen-year-old high school cheerleader named Ashley Stevens, was distantly related to Clinton. Republicans seized on the connection to claim that the man had been wrongfully convicted.
Soon after election, Governor Huckabee began to agitate for Wayne Dumond’s release. In his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Huckabee states that he worried Dumond might be innocent. He was callous enough to say this to Ashley Stevens when she begged him to keep Dumond behind bars. According to the Huffington Post, Huckabee’s office kept the visit secret, as well as letters from numerous victims warning that Dumond would strike again. They were right. Dumond then raped and then suffocated a 39-year-old woman. He was arrested again, the day after he allegedly raped and murdered a pregnant woman. Huckabee’s response amounts to “Who knew?” Other times he has blamed Clinton for Dumond’s release, pretending the commutation happened before his term.
In an election of this import, voters must make the effort to find out the truth. Don’t go into the voting precinct next Tuesday with a head full of lies. Cut through the urban legends – and even the campaign rhetoric – to consider a candidate’s true stance on the issues. Past voting records are the best clue.
We can believe that Democrats will institute nationwide healthcare coverage – and that Republicans consider it unnecessary. We can believe that Huckabee will be soft on crime and add to his 1,000+ pardons. We cannot believe McCain on immigration or Romney on abortion, because their positions are shifting and do not match their voting patterns. We can believe the Republicans when they say they will extend the war in the Middle East for 100 years or more. We can believe Democrats when they say they will end the war and bring troops home.
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
Monday, January 28, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Racism, sexism and representation
Primary picks to make your vote count in 2008
Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.
If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23% “Fair Tax” to come.
If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”
If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with -- someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.
If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.
If I were a war-hawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even ten million years.
If my greatest concern were the economy or healthcare – perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time -- I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.
Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.
I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers – not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home – with solid veteran’s benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.
The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.
The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.
On February 5th, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.
Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16% of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.
Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”
Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.
Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is re-circling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”
Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Ghandi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangldesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.
Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”
We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.
Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits illicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.
What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com
Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.
If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23% “Fair Tax” to come.
If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”
If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with -- someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.
If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.
If I were a war-hawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even ten million years.
If my greatest concern were the economy or healthcare – perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time -- I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.
Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.
I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers – not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home – with solid veteran’s benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.
The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.
The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.
On February 5th, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.
Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16% of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.
Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”
Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.
Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is re-circling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”
Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Ghandi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangldesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.
Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”
We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.
Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits illicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.
What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Baptist drop-out vs. Mormon priest
Religious battle for the Oval Office
Will the real Republican candidate please stand up? It surely can’t be drag queen Giuliani or “Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain. Fred Thompson’s act as a candidate is not very convincing, either. Thompson did not even make the Delaware primary ballot; he failed to locate even 500 registered Republicans who wanted him on the ticket.
Perhaps the real candidate is Mitt Romney. Sure, Romney is a slick corporate thug that should never be trusted with the presidency – but that’s just the sort of candidate Republican Party leaders want.
Now Mike Huckabee is finally getting some press. The former governor and Baptist pastor is everything conservatives say they want: anti-abortion, anti-immigration and anti-homosexual. Huckabee claims that “nothing in our society matters more” than heterosexual marriage.
Of course he is sold out to all the usual Republican lobbies. He wants to protect gun-makers from lawsuits, he scoffs at the idea that all Americans need healthcare, and he wants to dump more dollars into Iraq and other wars. Sounds like a perfect Republican candidate!
Yet Huckabee has been rejected by his own. Pat Robertson chose to endorse the drag queen instead of the Baptist pastor, revealing that politics are really more important to him than faith. Huckabee is gaining popularity now in spite of the snub.
Huckabee’s rise to the top may be short-lived. With public notice comes public scrutiny, and Huckabee just cannot pass muster. Already his campaign staff has had to defend the preacher’s repeated false claim of being “the only guy on that stage with a theology degree.” Turns out, Huckabee has no theology degree either. He dropped out of seminary after only one year.
Huckabee is also taking some heat for wondering out loud if Mormonism holds that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his followers characterize the comment as a religious smear tactic.
While I am hardly a Huckabee fan, I have to defend the preacher-turned-politician on this issue. Huckabee may have lied about his education, but it hardly takes a theology degree to perform a Google search. The official Latter Day Saints (LDS) website states “Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)”
As usual, Christians are asking the wrong question. A church’s theology on Satan is not a major criterion for inclusion beneath the Christian umbrella. The question is not what they do with Satan, but rather what they do with Jesus. Nearly everyone in the world believes that Jesus existed and was a good guy. Even Muslims accord him the status of prophet. The defining point of Christianity, however, is a belief that Jesus is in fact fully God.
Romney said in his carefully-crafted religion speech that Jesus is the savior of the world, hoping Christians would breathe a sigh of relief. However, there is an important theological distinction between the LDS church and those that are considered Christian churches. The LDS Church does not teach that Jesus is the eternal God. This is why Huckabee’s church and mine both consider the Mormon church to be a cult, not a Christian denomination.
You see, it is not enough to like or respect Jesus. According to the basic tenants of Christianity followed by every Christian church from the Southern Baptists to the Roman Catholics, Jesus is the eternal God who created the Universe. People who cannot agree with this statement are simply not Christians. They may be nice people. They may be intelligent, moral, strong, or even presidential. But they are not Christians.
According to LDS theology, Jesus was a created being who became God. Likewise, LDS men claim to be passing through mortal bodies on their way to becoming Gods. What we should be asking Romney is, “Do you consider Jesus God?” or even “Do you consider yourself God?”
As in Muslim theology, Mormons teach that women can only be saved through their husbands, not through faith in Christ. The LDS church no longer endorses polygamy – and yet, LDS writings claim that Jesus Christ himself was polygamous. If Christians were scandalized by Jesus’s fictional marriage to Mary Magdalene in“The Da Vinci Code,” how much more should we recoil from the Mormon claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and her sister Martha all at the same time?
Mitt Romney would like for us to believe he is unaware of such teachings, as if he were just a lay member of the LDS church. What voters must understand is that the LDS church has no lay members. Every male who joins becomes a priest of Aaron, and with any sort of time and devotion, moves right on up the ecclesiastical ladder. Mitt Romney has, in fact, served as a foreign missionary, a bishop, and the Stake President of his region.
As Stake President, Mitt Romney commanded hundreds --maybe thousands -- of Mormons under his charge. (No one really knows, since this information has been kept from public view, as have Huckabee’s sermons.) Stake presidents sit in judgment and determine who should be excommunicated for failing to live up to LDS standards. The position is somewhat analogous to that of a Catholic Archbishop.
Mitt Romney certainly knows what the LDS Church teaches – including the bit about women having no salvation apart from husbands – because he was responsible for making sure that all those members in his care followed the teachings.
When John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech on religion, he quipped, “I am a presidential candidate who happens to be Catholic.” Romney sought to give a similar vague answer, shrugging off his Mormon beliefs as if they were coincidental, like being left-handed. But Romney is not a barely-practicing LDS member by accident of birth. Romney wants to be the first Mormon high priest in the White House.
Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that presidential candidates must be professing Christians. In fact, Article VI prohibits using a religious test as qualification for any office. In other words, it is perfectly constitutional to put a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist on the ballot. The Constitution agrees with Mitt Romney that "one's faith should be no barrier to the right to vote, the right to run for office, nor the right to hold office."
What Romney implies is that we have no right to consider his religion when we go to the polls. This is patently false. It is the government, not the voters, who are prohibited from employing a religious test. Our own religious freedom mandates that we have the right to bring our personal convictions into the polling booth. We can vote against a candidate just because he is a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist. That’s the First Amendment, Mitt, and neither your good looks nor your clever manipulation of words will wrest it from us.
Will the real Republican candidate please stand up? It surely can’t be drag queen Giuliani or “Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain. Fred Thompson’s act as a candidate is not very convincing, either. Thompson did not even make the Delaware primary ballot; he failed to locate even 500 registered Republicans who wanted him on the ticket.
Perhaps the real candidate is Mitt Romney. Sure, Romney is a slick corporate thug that should never be trusted with the presidency – but that’s just the sort of candidate Republican Party leaders want.
Now Mike Huckabee is finally getting some press. The former governor and Baptist pastor is everything conservatives say they want: anti-abortion, anti-immigration and anti-homosexual. Huckabee claims that “nothing in our society matters more” than heterosexual marriage.
Of course he is sold out to all the usual Republican lobbies. He wants to protect gun-makers from lawsuits, he scoffs at the idea that all Americans need healthcare, and he wants to dump more dollars into Iraq and other wars. Sounds like a perfect Republican candidate!
Yet Huckabee has been rejected by his own. Pat Robertson chose to endorse the drag queen instead of the Baptist pastor, revealing that politics are really more important to him than faith. Huckabee is gaining popularity now in spite of the snub.
Huckabee’s rise to the top may be short-lived. With public notice comes public scrutiny, and Huckabee just cannot pass muster. Already his campaign staff has had to defend the preacher’s repeated false claim of being “the only guy on that stage with a theology degree.” Turns out, Huckabee has no theology degree either. He dropped out of seminary after only one year.
Huckabee is also taking some heat for wondering out loud if Mormonism holds that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his followers characterize the comment as a religious smear tactic.
While I am hardly a Huckabee fan, I have to defend the preacher-turned-politician on this issue. Huckabee may have lied about his education, but it hardly takes a theology degree to perform a Google search. The official Latter Day Saints (LDS) website states “Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)”
As usual, Christians are asking the wrong question. A church’s theology on Satan is not a major criterion for inclusion beneath the Christian umbrella. The question is not what they do with Satan, but rather what they do with Jesus. Nearly everyone in the world believes that Jesus existed and was a good guy. Even Muslims accord him the status of prophet. The defining point of Christianity, however, is a belief that Jesus is in fact fully God.
Romney said in his carefully-crafted religion speech that Jesus is the savior of the world, hoping Christians would breathe a sigh of relief. However, there is an important theological distinction between the LDS church and those that are considered Christian churches. The LDS Church does not teach that Jesus is the eternal God. This is why Huckabee’s church and mine both consider the Mormon church to be a cult, not a Christian denomination.
You see, it is not enough to like or respect Jesus. According to the basic tenants of Christianity followed by every Christian church from the Southern Baptists to the Roman Catholics, Jesus is the eternal God who created the Universe. People who cannot agree with this statement are simply not Christians. They may be nice people. They may be intelligent, moral, strong, or even presidential. But they are not Christians.
According to LDS theology, Jesus was a created being who became God. Likewise, LDS men claim to be passing through mortal bodies on their way to becoming Gods. What we should be asking Romney is, “Do you consider Jesus God?” or even “Do you consider yourself God?”
As in Muslim theology, Mormons teach that women can only be saved through their husbands, not through faith in Christ. The LDS church no longer endorses polygamy – and yet, LDS writings claim that Jesus Christ himself was polygamous. If Christians were scandalized by Jesus’s fictional marriage to Mary Magdalene in“The Da Vinci Code,” how much more should we recoil from the Mormon claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and her sister Martha all at the same time?
Mitt Romney would like for us to believe he is unaware of such teachings, as if he were just a lay member of the LDS church. What voters must understand is that the LDS church has no lay members. Every male who joins becomes a priest of Aaron, and with any sort of time and devotion, moves right on up the ecclesiastical ladder. Mitt Romney has, in fact, served as a foreign missionary, a bishop, and the Stake President of his region.
As Stake President, Mitt Romney commanded hundreds --maybe thousands -- of Mormons under his charge. (No one really knows, since this information has been kept from public view, as have Huckabee’s sermons.) Stake presidents sit in judgment and determine who should be excommunicated for failing to live up to LDS standards. The position is somewhat analogous to that of a Catholic Archbishop.
Mitt Romney certainly knows what the LDS Church teaches – including the bit about women having no salvation apart from husbands – because he was responsible for making sure that all those members in his care followed the teachings.
When John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech on religion, he quipped, “I am a presidential candidate who happens to be Catholic.” Romney sought to give a similar vague answer, shrugging off his Mormon beliefs as if they were coincidental, like being left-handed. But Romney is not a barely-practicing LDS member by accident of birth. Romney wants to be the first Mormon high priest in the White House.
Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that presidential candidates must be professing Christians. In fact, Article VI prohibits using a religious test as qualification for any office. In other words, it is perfectly constitutional to put a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist on the ballot. The Constitution agrees with Mitt Romney that "one's faith should be no barrier to the right to vote, the right to run for office, nor the right to hold office."
What Romney implies is that we have no right to consider his religion when we go to the polls. This is patently false. It is the government, not the voters, who are prohibited from employing a religious test. Our own religious freedom mandates that we have the right to bring our personal convictions into the polling booth. We can vote against a candidate just because he is a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist. That’s the First Amendment, Mitt, and neither your good looks nor your clever manipulation of words will wrest it from us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
