You may have read about the controversy surrounding the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit (though isn't safe to assume that all voters vote their values?) and the claim that Gov. Mitt Romney's Mormon faith makes him a member of a non-Christian "cult." From Politico:
Jeffress described Romney's Mormon faith as a “cult,” and said evangelicals had only one real option in the 2012 primaries.
Jeffress said that fundamentalist Christians cannot trust that Romney will be a strong advocate for their conservative values (a claim that is reasonable even without bringing Romney's faith into the conversation), and that while Romney is a fine example of an individual living out family values, “It is only faith in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone that qualifies you as a Christian.”
Romney spoke later, but did not address Jeffress's comments directly; he instead chose to denounce divisive language in general and addressed one particular speaker, radio talk show host Bryan Fischer:
Fischer lived up to Romney's expectations, stating that the US needs a president who understands that just as Islam represents the greatest long term threat to national liberty, the "homosexual agenda" represents the greatest immediate threat to every freedom and right enshrined in the first amendment (Fischer was interrupted with enthusiastic applause after making this claim).
Romney interestingly chose not to condemn the specific attack on his religious faith, but instead sought to distance himself from a far-right extremist whose views will alienate and shock an overwhelming number of mainstream Americans. Why is Romeny ignoring Jeffress's attack and focusing only on Fischer? Is he already playing to the centrist voters who decide general elections as polls show him once again leading in key Republican primary races? Is he hoping to avoid ties to the more extreme cohorts of his party, associations that will ultimately prove unpalatable to general election voters? Or, has he recognized that the current GOP appears sometimes to function more as a church than as a political party? (If Perry is given the nod, his Texas-sized prayer rally will only reinforce this notion). Is he not addressing the claims against Mormonism in an attempt to deflect attention from the issue altogether and perhaps not offend any who may agree with such charges?
Under the constitution, there is no religious test to hold office.
Members of any religion tend to regard members of other religions as, at best, misinformed and misguided.
Looking at a candidate's behavior is far more indicative of the kind of person s/he is.
It might be well to recall that " "Your behavior is so loud that I can't hear a word your saying!"
America is, of course, free to publish whatever it wants. I hope this will not include further reference to the Reverend Jeffers unfortunate remarks!
BTW, I have been re-reading a book on America bigotry, and I was amused to notice that about 1910 the Knights of Columbus supplanted the Jesuits as the shock troops the Pope was using to take over America. A hundred years later, the main threats to American freedom seem to be Muslims and Mormons, but the descriptions of themn sound a lot like what they used to say about the pope and Jesuits/Kights.
It's not bigotry to say I'd vote for a Mormon but I wouldn't convert to Mormonism. And it's not bigotry to state what is part of the Mormon creed - that Jesus Christ had a beginning in history and did not "pre-exist" as the Word of God. I've had friendly discussions with Mormons on this point. They did not take offense and I hope you don't either. I've had the same theological discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't slam the door on them but engage them in a discussion of who Jesus is. They defend their belief (Jesus did not always dwell with the Father) and site scripture to prove their point. I counter, with charity, with other scripture passages that show that Jesus has been with the Father for all eternity. We part as friends.
I, too, have theological problems with Mormons, but I don't think they bear on fitness for public office, or that the proper place to discuss them is in the context of a political campaign.