The religious test for public office

>>If believing in peculiar religious doctrines disqualifies one from public office, why on earth would a secularist, a Jew, a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist vote for a Christian candidate?

Because that is all that we are offered.

Doug,

As an FYI, the President rarely says anything, either positive or negative, about the worthiness of various scientific projects. The vast majority of projects that are government funded are too small and/or mainstream to be worth his attention. I personally would put this particular criteria way down on the list when trying to decide who to vote for as our next president.

I've never met one I didn't like, but I'd never vote for a Christian Scientist for any policy-making office. There are plenty of New Agers I'd put in the same category. It's not that much of a stretch to be leary of a presidential candidate who, in the course of his term, might be called upon to take a leadership role in scientific matters (JFK and NASA).

Todd,

I didn't phrase that well, did I? I expect there to be major scientific/technological dimensions to the most important national issues over the coming decades; I think the president will need to have good judgment and instincts when it comes to the best application of science. From major energy innovations to biotechnologies to defense and weapons programs to robotics and AI, I'd be thrilled to see a president in place with a basic handle on science and the ability to argue persuasively where and when he disagrees with prevailing scientific theories. He'll make better calls on other sci/tech decisions, and have a better sense for which experts/advisors are making sound recommendations.

Bless,
Doug

Rod, I agree with you as far as your argument goes. But I think we all need to recognize one other issue, a sensitive issue that needs to be raised in a manner that is respectful toward Mormons. It's this: those of us who live in Western states with large Mormon populations can tell you that the Mormon "organization" (for lack of a better term) is unlike anything that any other religious group in America has. The Mormon church is a vertically integrated organization that owns very significant businesses, news media, land, resorts, etc. And it is an unusually closely-held and secretive organization, much more so than any other major American religious denomination. It is also a religious group that has an extraordinarily high level of "social cohesion," to put it in the most respectful terms. Plus, it has a history here in many Western states of wielding very considerable political power. All of that makes it unique. And, of some legitimate concern. Even though I agree with you that Romney appears to be an able, honest man with legitimate policy positions, the concern that drives many of his critics may be that electing him president will necessarily mean that the Mormon "organization" will move into positions of great federal power in Washington. Is that a real concern? If you live in a Western state with a substantial Mormon presence, you can't discount it. Can Romney address that concern? Perhaps he should.

Rod, I'm not sure that one can imply that it's never legitimate to consider a candidate's religious beliefs in considering whether or not to vote for that person, though to be fair I'm not sure you intend to imply that. While it's true that to a nonbeliever a Christian's beliefs may be as odd as a Mormon's, it's also true that some religions are older and more established than others, and less prone to cult-like tendencies.

I don't necessarily agree with those Christians who see Mormonism as a cult, but if one did see Mormonism that way, it would be difficult to vote for a Mormon. I personally would find it extremely difficult to vote for a Scientologist, for instance, because I do see Scientology as a cult rather than a religion. Now, that's my personal perspective, and someone else might argue that Scientology is a religion and therefore no different than Christianity or Judaism or Islam, but as far as my subjective decision to vote or not vote for a Scientologist would go these arguments would bear little weight with me.

Of course, this means that I would defend the right of someone who reads Chick tracts to define a Catholic as a cult member who is unworthy of public office. I actually would defend his right to do so provided that the Constitutional provision forbidding such views from being encoded in election policy remains in full force.

We've had a presidency where science has taken a back seat to religion. We've seen safe contraceptives restricted by a White House and FDA that was more interested in the views of James Dobson than scientists. We saw important scientific research blocked from federal funding not because of the science, but because of the objections of the Catholic church and the pro-life movements.

Those were decisions made on moral/ethical grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with "junk science" (or any sort of scientific conclusions at all).

What you are arguing for is scientific research unfettered by any ethical or moral restraints -- and to enjoy an absolute right to receive public funding, no less.

Resistance to that position is perfectly constitutional, reasonable, and even normal. It doesn't entail "science taking a back seat to religion" any more than do moral objections to, say, the Tuskegee experiements.

Well stated, Erin.

A "Tom Cruise for President" campaign would be about my limit.

(And I echo those who say their objections to Romney are not his LDS membership, but his constant flip-flopping.)

Two things.

1.
There are plenty of open-minded intelligent scientists and homeschoolers who believe in Intelligent Design. The idea of a Creator of all creatures. Many see this idea as completely compatible with the Genesis story.

Also, Given the Genesis story there is no reason to doubt that some of the principles of evolution are also true. If there was originally only one Adam and Eve, presumably of one race, then their was an evolution of all of the other races - Brought on by differences in environmental conditions, genetic mutation, whatever the cause. Genetic historians are already looking into this evolution of forms.

The difference between the two groups isn't that wide. Evolution did occur. The question is was it an evolution within the human race or did it jump from monkeys to man. Since the actual evidence of the missing link is still missing. Both positions would still be theoretically valid.

2.
I truly believe some Christians are reluctant to vote for a Mormon because they believe Mormonism is a twisting of the Christian faith. Which is different than with other religions. If it is a twisting, not a separate religion, it can be seen as a cult or a heresy. And a vote for a member of that religion would be an implicit endorsement of that distortion of Christianity.

I'm not sure this is always a conscience awareness. Just a back of the mind, 'Hey wait a minute. What AM I endorsing here?' Whether this is a valid way to pick a candidate is another question.

Is it possible that democracy is more compatible with secularism than fundamentalism? And isn't a suspicion of state religion the reason the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to separate church from state?

When Bush ran for President in 2000, he seemed to many of us to be a fairly moderate fellow, interested in compassion, education, and bipartisanship. This turned out not to be the case -- not just in regards to 9/11, but also by a profoundly anti-scientific bias in the Bush administration. (For instance, suppressing or rewriting scientific reports regarding climate, forest fires, endangered species, coal pollution, etc.) Further clouding the picture, Bush and his allies have repeatedly promised to respect "sound science," but that turns out to have been a Frank Luntz code word for the science they want to hear.

That's what the evolution question is getting at, I think, and when Huckabee doubts that we are in fact descended from a long line of mammals, that's a warming sign for those of us who believe in biology--for example, the National Geographic--and conventional science. Huckabee's notion of biology wouldn't get him a passing grade in most high school classes around the country == but he and most Republicans can't admit that, because most Republicans don't believe in evolution, as Gallup says.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx

This puts Huckabee in a tough spot. He seems to be a moderate, at heart, and not the sort to try and strong-arm scientists, but both his constituency and his faith rule against evolution, even seemingly the idea that God "guided" the process. No wonder the question irritates him.

Very well said, rebeccat. For years I have found the "debate" over Intelligent Design to be equal parts embarrassing and fraudulent. Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design, even those who are willing to give it a "fair shake" in the classroom, is completely and willfully ignorant of the science available to them at the click of a mouse.

Rod says he's irritated that Huckabee is being hectored about evolution. I don't see why. The theory of evolution is not attached to any moral or ethical issue (unlike, say, embryonic stem cells or contraceptives, which is why your argument about a secularist religious test is just lame). It is a theory built on more than 150 years of observation, data collection and rigorous testing; and through all that, it has endured. Intelligent Design has no theory. It has no data. It has nothing that is testable. It no way shape or form is Intelligent Design a science.

Even if Huckabee sticks to his promise that he won't interfere with how our schools teach the orgin of life on Earth, the fact that he, as president, doesn't believe in evolution makes him a powerful symbol and political ally for those who desire to subvert, at the local levels, a proper education in science with junk science like ID.

Suppose Hucakbee annouced that he was dismissing germ theory because he belived diseases like AIDS and influenza were caused by demons (Intelligent Malevolence, I suppose), not viruses, but don't worry, his belief "doesn't have a thing to do with governing as president" and wouldn't alter federal research funding."

Tell me, are you gonna vote for that? Hell, even if you agreed with every other issue he supports, wouldn't that single statement at least give you pause about his judgment?

Isn't our education system horrid enough without an elfin-faced President Huckabee opening the doors to anything-goes science?

quote: "Is it possible that democracy is more compatible with secularism than fundamentalism?"

Well, what about secular fundamentalism? I don't see militant secularist as particularly tolerant or democratic. I think the broader point is that democracy is compatible with those realize they live in a pluralistic society and seek to ensure individual rights for all.

rr

Sheilagh,

I'll grant you that there are plenty of otherwise intelligent people who believe in Intelligent Design, but intelligent people get duped all the time. And I will further grant you that many of these same people find the idea of ID as "completely compatible with the Genesis story." (Of course, this is because ID is nothing more than jargon-laden creationism.)

Genesis strongly implies that man was created in a final state; meaning the biblical Adam basically looks just like any ol' Adam in 2007. Evolution states that modern man evolved from several earlier (now extinct) species of hominid. Creationists are fond of saying that evolutionists believe that men evolved from monkeys but are at a loss to explain why, if true, monkeys exist in the modern world. But this is rubbish. Certain primates and what was to become modern man evolved from a common (and now extinct) ancestor. In fact, scientists have not only found "the missing link" they have found several, thanks to technology that allows us to study our genetic makeup. It's absolutley facinating stuff, and it is all based on testable observations and facts.

(Incidentally, and I may be wildly off the mark here, but isn't the Tower of Babel story essentially an explanation for a variety of races, languages and cultures on our planet? Men tried to build a tower to reach god, so he gave them different languages and scattered them around the world...)

Taller.

Sorry to be quick with the reply but I need to run out to a meeting.

Can't say I agree with the idea of a final state. My take is "E unum, pluribus" From one, many.

I'd need to look into the genetic discoveries more closely. Since most evolved life shares some genetic code, I'm not sure if the discovery of shared genes necessarily proves evolution. Humans share some of their cell structure with plants but (I don't think) man was once a stalk of celery. . . kidding.

Granted I'm drawing from the Thomistic view that God can be discovered through Creation. But also from spectroscopy and the wavelengths of light. There are some things that go beyond random selection don't you think?

I'm offline. . .

How about defining a Christian simply as one who believes in Jesus Christ and His teachings?

Some think that they can monopolize the word and make conditions around who a Christian is based on their own particular set of beliefs. Ockham was right; the simplest definition is the often best. The values, beliefs, doctrines, principles, and history of specific religious systems are matters that are beside the point of what the word Christian means. Those things are always going to be subjective. No two religious denominations are alike.

The basic definition is the best. Mormons are Christians.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. The man that was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the meridian of time. The man who sacrificed himself to atone for the sins of all so that we may be redeemed through faith and repentance on His name. The man who was crucified on the cross in an open shame, but gave himself willingly as a sacrifice for sin. The man that was resurrected on the third day, breaking the bands of death, and regaining his body of flesh and bone never to be lost again. The man that is our Advocate with the Father. The man that is the Prince of Peace. It is only in and through the name of Jesus Christ, the Lord, that we can be saved in the kingdom of God, and in no other way.

That is the Christ that we are talking about. The Christ that was defined by the Nicene Creed does not exist; it was invented by those doctors who were extremely misinformed and confused, hence the Nicene Creed is extremely confusing. The tenets of the Nicene Creed do NOT exist in the Bible, whatsoever. You will not find them.

What is basic to Christians is that we all believe in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and what He has taught us. What other kind of litmus test would you want to subject people to?

Bryce,

Rereading my comment shows me that I am being too harsh in the second paragraph. I apologize for the harshness.

Rod says he's irritated that Huckabee is being hectored about evolution. I don't see why. The theory of evolution is not attached to any moral or ethical issue...

That's not correct.

If evolution is true, if evolution obviates the need for God as creator or designer (as many scientists say it does), if evolution means man is not qualitatively special (as many scientists say it does -- we're just smart apes) -- then the theory obviously has enormous moral and ethical consequences. And just to hint, liberals dislike as many of them as conservatives (Social Darwinism and sociobiology, to pick only the first-order consequences of evolutionism).

In other words, are we talking about "evolution" as a modest scientific-historical theory, or are we talking about "evolution" as a worldview? In ordinary lingo (and keep in mind we're talking in this context about political discourse, not scientific journals), each usage is as likely as the other. And even apart from its ambiguity, I would refuse to answer the unmodified question "do you believe in evolution" because the question is really more often just a pharisaic litmus test, a way of territorial marking about as interesting as the method a dog uses for that purpose.

Yes, and that is the key. THEY (Muslims) do not claim to be Christians. WE DO! Mormons are Christians! Who are you do deny me my right to be a Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ?

Just because some Christians agreed upon some doctrines, does not make them true. The Protestants didn't believe them, that is why they broke off from the Catholic tradition. What God reveals is what is true.

If you truly respect my right to believe how I do, then you would also respect my right to be a Christian, one who believes in the Savior and Redeemer of mankind.

We do not claim to follow "traditional" Christian orthodoxy, and never have. You are right! We understand that the "traditional" views came from the Nicene Creed and other creeds several centuries after Christ. We are not "traditional" Christians. But we are Christians! Our view of Christianity breaks with that of post-New Testament Christian history, and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus himself. Claiming that we are not Christians at all is selfish, and it's a lie.

A "rubber hits the road" test -- and one that goes both ways.

What is the church's practice on baptism?

It is a fact that former Mormons who convert to Catholicism have to be baptized (and not, e.g., Episcopalian or Baptist converts), which constitutes a definitive judgement from by far the world's largest Christian body that Mormons are not Christians. Since the Nicene Creed says "we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins," acceptance of one another's baptisms has always been a key litmus test for which groups claiming to be Christians are considered so by "other" Christians.

And it goes the other way too.

It is equally a fact that Mormons baptize converts who were Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. Meaning that Mormonism teaches not that it is one Christian branch among many, but that it is the only Christian church (not even us Roman Catholics teach that, exactly). It is also a cultural fact, and surely not an irrelevant one, that Mormons frequently refer to us as "gentiles."

This otherwise-good New York Times article on the Church's 2001 ruling notes both that the Vatican is not alone in having made this judgement -- the Methodist Church has done the same -- and that a Mormon spokesman understood why the Vatican ruled as it did, was not offended by it and noted his own church's rules. (Though I can't say I wasn't irritated by the article's use of term "rebaptize," which judges the issue according to the New York Times First Commandment, which is that the Church is always wrong.)

"Mormons are not Christian in any sense that Catholics, Baptists and Anglicans are too" is not an opinion, but a fact. Either they are Christians or we are ... but not both. Mormons themselves believe that.

Sure, the Catholic church is now the official authority on who is Christian and who is not. Who gave them that authority and how?

Do you want to know why we baptize converts from other faiths? Because we believe that God's authority of the priesthood, both Melchizedek and Aaronic, has been restored today, by the laying on of hands, by Peter, James, John the Beloved, and John the Baptist. It is only by this authority that man is given the right by God to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. The authority of the Aaronic priesthood, which John the Baptist restored personally, has the authority by God to baptize. Without the authority of the priesthood, gospel ordinances are null and void.

Christians believe in Christ. No one has a monopoly on that definition. Not you, not Protestants, nor Lutherans, nor Catholics, nor Evangelicals, nor Baptists. To assume such is disgraceful and deceitful.

I guess you fully fit the definition of a bigot then. A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. If you do not respect my right to call myself a Christian, then you are intolerant of my beliefs because they are different than your own. For I do call myself Christian. It is what I believe. Jesus is the Christ! Just because my beliefs about Christ differ from yours does not mean that I am not Christian. The fact that Mormons are Christian is non-negotiable.

First person to scream "bigot" loses. Mr. Morton gave an objective argument based on the validity of baptism, one shared by your church. Glance over it as you like, but it says more about your inability to engage the issue without rancor than anything else. In other words, Mormons believe they are the true church and others are lost in error. Deceivers, even, if they don't have any valid authority from God.

Oh, and there are lots of people who call themselves Christians, revere the Bible and flatly deny that Christ was bodily raised from the dead (the resurrection accounts are parables and midrashic interpretations of the meaning of Christ's death). John Dominic Crossan is the most televised of these folk, but the belief has made significant inroads in Episcopal and Methodist circles due to the influence of John Shelby Spong (the current Presiding Bishop is a friend and student of his) and Joseph Sprague, respectively. Who are you to deny them the title Christian?

Creed or chaos.

I'm a Catholic, too. Lots of people don't consider Catholics Christians. So be it.

rebeccat -

as science advances and we understand more, those gaps that cause IDer's to point to God will be filled in until the need for God as an actor in creation will be eliminated all together.

Why do you believe that science will fill in all of the gaps? My experience as a research mathematician is that the more we learn, we realize that there is even more that we do not understand.

Basing belief on what we don't know is almost always a HUGE mistake.

Are you then arguing for atheism here? After all, religious belief of any form requires that we accept some form of mystery, and often some acceptance that there are things that we will simply not know or understand.

accepting mystery - even reveling in a certain amount of mystery is one thing. Insisting that you know the answers to mysteries before you even become aware of what the mysteries are is another thing. There's nothing mysterious about "God did it."
I used to blog myself and actually did a post about how scientists were unlocking the secrets of exactly the kinds of cells and complex organisms (like eyes) that IDers point to all the time. Sure, new mysteries pop up, but over time saying, "well, ok, so that one can be explained, but look at this new mystery over here - surely THIS one requires the hand of God" is going to become less and less convincing.
I'm especially concerned about the effect that this stuff has on kids. If you have a kid who has been told that in order to be a good Christian, they must be creationist, then when they get older and are exposed to scientific truths, they are much more likely to reject their faith altogether along with the creationist stuff. Likewise, as kids who are taught ID get older and see some of the things which they were taught in the past were evidence of God's hand working directly in the creation process, this will almost inevitably undermine their faith as well.
I have taught my kids that science is about discovering the mechanisms and rules that God choose to use to create and structure the universe. It would have been almost impossible for God to explain evolution or the big bang to ancient people who didn't know what caused illness and didn't have words for the quantity billions or millions. So he explained it in a way that they could understand and which conveyed the essential truths of creation. My kids may come to reject their faith, but I can at least rest assured that it won't be because of this ridiculous debate. I view anyone who wants to try and teach my kids creationist nonsense or even ID as not just peddling in bad science, but as posing a threat to my children's spiritual development and I do my best to keep them away from my kiddos.

Sure, the Catholic church is now the official authority on who is Christian and who is not. Who gave them that authority and how?

The Vatican does definitively teach for Catholicism, sure. How you paraphrased me isn't exactly my point -- I am quite well aware that "argument from Vatican authority" doesn't work for those outside the visible Roman Catholic Church.

My point rather was that all Christian churches accept one another's baptisms as valid. I could go into a Presbyterian Church tomorrow and whatever else I was required to do (it would depend on some mostly-local factors), one of them would NOT be "get baptized." My 1966 Catholic baptism in St. Joseph Church, Glasgow, is "good." And the same rule would apply to a Presbyterian convert to Catholicism. And so on with baptisms in almost all Anglican, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Church of Christ, Church of God, Methodist, Orthodox, AME, black Baptist, etc. bodies. They are presumed valid because we all affirm the same creeds, whatever differences (and they are not trivial) do exist. Admittedly, some of those other Christian bodies I mentioned have a governing structure and ecclesiology that gives them a harder time making definitive and binding statements as Roman Catholicism can, but we all can acknowledge each other as Christians at some level.

You might have had a point about overreaching in citing the Catholic Church as definitive for what is a Christian -- "might" if it weren't for the fact that **your own church** says exactly the same thing. Makes a claim to being the sole valid Christian body. Hence the LDS practice of rebaptizing all converts. I am quite well aware, Bryce, of the rationale for this that you cite. I understand *why* you guys baptize converts and the theory of ecclesial history underlying that practice. And if I were a Mormon, I would agree.

But don't you dare play the game of "who is your church to define who is a Christian" game and the absurd "I can call myself what I want and you're oppressing me, you bigot, when you deny me that right" ploy when the LDS Church also presumes to define who is a Christian definitively and would also deny my right to call my baptism valid because Father Rossi wasn't ordained by the Aaronic priesthood.

Christians believe in Christ. No one has a monopoly on that definition. Not you, not Protestants, nor Lutherans, nor Catholics, nor Evangelicals, nor Baptists. To assume such is disgraceful and deceitful.

No ... but collectively, all the Christian denominations do, and, given the baptismal practices, the only way Mormonism is "in" is if all the others are "out." You simply cannot teach that there was an all-the-way-down 1700+-year "breach" in the per se validity of the visible church (no serious Protestant would argue that about the Reformation, BTW) and expect that those churches that have been around for those 1700 years to accept that you're part of the family.

Either you are making an argument for linguistic nihilism ("Christian is anybody who says he is"), or you are simply being deceitful yourself about what the LDS Church teaches (or more likely, you're just not taking it seriously enough to take to its logical conclusion).

And BTW ... Lutherans, Evangelicals and Baptists are all Protestants, and some Ls and many Bs are Evangelicals.

Victor - Mormons recognize and respect ALL people who worship Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior as Christian, something that you vehemently oppose reciprocating. So you are completely wrong there, sir.

No amount of rhetoric will change the fact that Mormons are Christian.

It's amazing the lack of respect that you give to your fellow man. It is not Christ-like in the least degree. We worship Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, the one who atoned for our sins in Gethsemane and on the cross, yet you would say that I am not Christian because my beliefs differ from yours. That is bigotry sir.

The gospel says, come one, come all, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Christ said, come, follow me! Worship me! Yet you would deny me that right, to be called a Christian, one who follows Christ.

We are not "traditional" "orthodox" Christians! You are right! We have never claimed to be. We reject all the post-New Testament Christian history. We believe what Christ said, not those that tried to figure out what he said many years after the fact.

Shortly after the apostasy of the early Christian Church, a 4th century monk cried, "Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, . . . and I know not whom to adore or to address" (Owen Chadwick, Western Asceticism, 235). How are we to trust, love, and worship One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? Christ said, "And this is life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). Yet that is exactly what the Nicene Creed says that we CANNOT do.

We solemnly declare that God is NOT incorporeal, without body, parts, or passions! Paul also warned of this utterly gross heresy and evil man-made abomination (Acts 17:22-31)! We will not honor man over God. Those that consider us not Christian because we don't support a man-made document that was created several hundred years after Christ, and which defined the nature of God as something wholly incompatible with all of holy writ, is unthinkable.

On Mormonism, we should agree that Mormons are culturally Christians. The question on whether they are theologically Christians can be debated among the various Christian sects.

Bryce:

"Victor - Mormons recognize and respect ALL people who worship Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior as Christian, something that you vehemently oppose reciprocating. So you are completely wrong there, sir."

I know Victor personally, so I don't think he'll mind me jumping in here.

Fine: Then accept my Methodist baptism which took place on September 21, 1969.

The analogy is this: some guy with the last name of Price storms up to my door, insists that he's part of the family and demands that I put him in my will. In the midst of these startling claims, he alternates between protestations of love for all Prices and allegations that my dad is a pimp and that I'm descended from an ancient and continuous line of hobo burglars, grifting prostitutes and worse. To top it off, he claims he's the real owner of my house because my deed is based on an old forgery that he refuses to recognize, so, oh, by the way, he and his immediate family are the real owners.

But he still respects me and mine.

Not to get back to the point of the original post or anything, but I want to address the question Rod posed, which I'll paraphrase as "why can theologically conservative Christians object to Romney's strange Mormon theology when they believe in equally strange things?"

I have a simple answer to that question. I am a Christian in necessary part because I believe that the claims (historical and otherwise) of Christianity are true. I believe that Jesus really walked the earth, really died, and really rose again. Those are falsifiable historical facts that I believe to be true. If they were ever demonstrated to be false, I would no longer be a Christian.

Falsifiable historical facts also constitute necessary elements of Mormon faith. Some of those historical facts have been demonstrated to be false. Native American are not Jewish, for instance. A person who continues to believe in a faith based on demonstrated falsehoods should not be surprised when his judgment is questioned.

And this is wholly separate from the issue of believing strange doctrines. Transubstantiation is strange, yes, but it is not falsifiable. Objections to the strange doctrines of the LDS church should be met with the same response to strange doctrines of the RCC (albeit perhaps with less deference, given the age disparity between the churches). But just as the belief that the world is flat calls into question the believer's judgment, the belief in other demonstrably false "facts" raises serious questions about judgment.

And questions of judgment are perfectly fair to raise in the course of a presidential campaign.

Of course, this means that I would defend the right of someone who reads Chick tracts to define a Catholic as a cult member who is unworthy of public office. I actually would defend his right to do so provided that the Constitutional provision forbidding such views from being encoded in election policy remains in full force.

No one disagrees with you. Of course voters have the right to vote against Catholics, or blacks, or believers, or non-Communists. No one is proposing that we make it illegal. The question is whether its right to vote on that basis.

It is equally a fact that Mormons baptize converts who were Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. Meaning that Mormonism teaches not that it is one Christian branch among many, but that it is the only Christian church (not even us Roman Catholics teach that, exactly).

You simply misunderstand the Mormon view of baptism. Whether we accept or reject a baptism has absolutely zero to do with whether we think the baptizers were followers of Christ or not. In our view, a baptism has to be performed by someone with authority to be valid. So we don't accept Methodist baptism for the same reason that Catholics don't accept Methodist communion or Methodist ordinations.

It is also a cultural fact, and surely not an irrelevant one, that Mormons frequently refer to us as "gentiles."

Actually, it is irrelevant. As you point out this is a cultural marker, not a theological one, (it is usually said in jest), and it refers not to following Christ but to membership in the house of Israel.

Falsifiable historical facts also constitute necessary elements of Mormon faith. Some of those historical facts have been demonstrated to be false. Native American are not Jewish, for instance. A person who continues to believe in a faith based on demonstrated falsehoods should not be surprised when his judgment is questioned.

This is you not understanding Mormonism and the state of the historical facts. The idea that Jews are the *principal* ancestors of the Amerindians, which is what the scientific evidence tends to show is not the case, is not a necessary element of the Mormon faith.

And questions of judgment are perfectly fair to raise in the course of a presidential campaign.

Thinking someone has bad judgment because you think, falsely, that their religion is silly shows very bad judgment on their part. First, its simply a fact that you're likely to be misinformed about their religion as an outsider. Second, its simply a fact that in a large, established religion there will be any number of members of that religion who are demonstrably smart, wise, well-informed, etc. This is a historical fact. Do you really think all Mormons are stupid?

I do accept your baptism as a good thing, Dale. It is excellent. It is a very good thing that you were baptized. God commanded that it be done. You are following God's commandments, that everyone, everywhere, repent and be baptized.

But if you want to be a member of the LDS Church you will have to be baptized by our priesthood authority. It is the only method by which someone becomes a member of our church. It has always been that way, and will always be that way. Even Paul rebaptized twelve saints (Acts 19:1-7). Even many members of our own church were rebaptized after it was formally organized.

I don't want to be a part of your family, Dale. We are not claiming to be "traditional" "orthodox" Christians as has been produced over the last 1800-1900 years. But we are Christians, nonetheless. Your interpretation of our doctrine is skewed, twisted, distorted, misinformed, and utterly gross and despicable. It is not what we teach or believe. You are bearing false witness against your neighbor.

The supposed "falsehoods" of historic Mormonism have been time and time again been shown to be inconsistent and wrong with regard to religious history, scientific fact, and the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you wish to read the mountain of scholarly work that is being done on the subject, please see www.fairlds.org, or farms.byu.edu.

Very well said, Osvaldo.

Bryce:

The family analogy, like all analogies, is inexact. But Mormons are the ones laying claim to the family name of Christ, and do so with some remarkable invective against the rest of Christianity, some of which you have offered here, and some of which is worse.

"But we are Christians, nonetheless."

Your interpretation of our doctrine is skewed, twisted, distorted, misinformed, and utterly gross and despicable. It is not what we teach or believe. You are bearing false witness against your neighbor.

No, no, no. You don't get to do that. High dudgeon and liar accusations won't fly with me. You have the opportunity, right here, right now, to set me straight. I can be persuaded otherwise. Put up. "Google it" or "check this website" aren't enough. You--as a faithful member of the LDS--show me where I went astray. Cite what I've said and offer an objective rebuttal sans the prosecutorial anger.

I am more than willing to listen--Mormons are pretty thin on the ground where I live.

Dale, I think you're off base. You want to act as if everyone understands that "Christian" means adhering to the Nicene Creed, not accepting Christ as Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Divine Savior. This is not so.

Second, Mormons do not have to accept the Apostles' Creed as authoritative to accept it as accurate.

I called you no such thing. Read it again. It was an analogy, and it depicted ME being on the receiving end.

And I am stunned and disappointed that you aren't going to even bother to show me where I am off-base on the LDS. The only thing it guarantees is that I'll keep doing so. A real lose-lose for everyone.

Mr. Mandias, I'd appreciate being shown where I have gone wrong, if you have the time. I'll put up a post over here later and if you'd be so kind as to comment, I'll send you my e-mail.

Your "analogy" called us such. Anyone who has a conscience can read what you wrote and know what you said.

But it's alright. Let's get past it. I forgive you for what you said. Now let's move on.

If you want to learn how you are off-base about the Church, why not ask the Church?

www.lds.org
www.mormon.org
www.fairlds.org
farms.byu.edu

I can answer specific questions, not a whole barrage at once.

Here is a good story:
Judge him by works, words, not his faith

Dale, you illustrate well (and painfully) why I try everything I can to avoid argument by analogy. Bryce may be forgiven, IMO, for taking offense; I'll also point out, again IMO, that your only offense was in not making your intentions clear when you decided to use that analogy.

I must agree, too, that it is a lousy analogy.

This outsider observes that the history of Christian schism (being cyclic, with periods of consolidation as well) may serve to offer understanding around the conflict between Mormons and (other) Christians. Mormons are not the first, nor are they likely to be the last, group identifying itself as Christian and contradicted by (other) Christians. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen or heard the rejoinder "but he/she is not a true Christian", I'd be typing this from a comfortable retirement.

This is really incredible. I don't know how I can state it more clearly and simply.

Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, His birth, His life, His death, His teachings, His ministry, His atonement, His infinite sacrifice, His resurrection, His ascension, His parables, His words, His apostles, His gospel, His miracles, His authority, His Sonship, His Godship, His divinity, His sermons, His counsel, His morals, His example, His revelations, His condescension, His light, His truth, His church.

We will never deny that. Ever. We never have. We are Christians!

No one has a "claim" to Christianity which will not allow others to be Christian. That is not Christ-like; for He said "Come, follow me."

Thank you Dale. I accept your apology. I too am sorry and apologize if my remarks provoked any bad feelings.

Have a very Merry Christmas to you too.

I am an oven - I can cook babies and if I sit on something long enough, it gets hot. How dare you say I am not an oven!
OK, that wasn't nice, but the fact of the matter is that words have meanings and it's not up to each of us to decide their meanings. Christianity had a specific meaning for 2000 years. In the last 20-30 years there have been concerted efforts by people ranging from Bishop Spong to the church of mormon to change that definition to make it more inclusive, almost always accompanied by the accusation, "you have no right to say who can and cannot call themselves a Christian."
Bryce, I'm not sure how old you are, but if you were over the age of 40, you would be well aware that this insistence that mormons are Christians is new. And just saying something doesn't make it so. And even if it makes perfect sense to you, I have every right to completely and utterly reject your claims. Which I do. To me your insistence that I suddenly recognize your faith as a Christian faith reeks of manipulation and disingenuous dealings. I know that is not your intention personally, but it most certainly fits the mormon church's dealings in the issue over the last couple of decades.
Anyways, I have done nothing to convince you and you have done far, far less than nothing to convince me (I think it's fair to say that my opinion on the subject has become more entrenched and thought out as a result of this conversation), so we should probably let it be.

"While it's true that to a nonbeliever a Christian's beliefs may be as odd as a Mormon's, it's also true that some religions are older and more established than others, and less prone to cult-like tendencies."

If we are serious about the constitutional prohibition on religious tests for public office, then the word "cult" has no place in our discussion. A cult is merely a religion newer than mine. (Can a Jew, or a Buddhist, or a Zoroastrian, consider all Christians cultists?)

Isaac Bonewits, a neo-pagan with a scholarly bent, developed a cult evaluation checklist that has seen wide use and acceptance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Bonewits_Cult_Danger_Evaluation_Frame#Isaac_Bonewits

As he puts it, "The purpose of this evaluation tool is to help both amateur and professional observers, including current or would-be members, of various organizations (including religious, occult, psychological or political groups) to determine just how dangerous a given group is liable to be, in comparison with other groups, to the physical and mental health of its members and of other people subject to its influence."

Heck, if Romney would just stand up and say, "we're not Christians, although we do share common roots and goals in creating a social society which values family, decency and life" that would end this whole thing as an issue for me.

You want Romney to lie to you? Mormons are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The title page of the Book of Mormon says that its mean to be for "the convincing of the jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ." Since the beginning we've been baptized 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' We perform all of our rites 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or 'by the authority of Jesus Christ.' We make covenants to take the name of Christ and to "stand as a witness of him in all times and all places."

Mormons don't say they're followers of Christ because its hip. We say it because we'll be damned if we don't. You may not like it. Tough. We're not going to deny our God and Savior to make you happy.

You say that you have to say that Mormons aren't Christians because they think your own faith tradition has gone awry. So what? The definition of following Christ is not agreeing with you in every respect.

Well, after having been called a bigot for stating that Mormons are not Christians on exactly the terms that Mormons say Catholics aren't Christians, you'll excuse me for not joing the levity.

Bryce wrote:
Mormons recognize and respect ALL people who worship Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior as Christian

Then why do you rebaptize (I understand why ... the point is rhetorical) and how can you possibly think there has been a 1700-year Great Apostasy? This is not being "nice" to one another, but about truth.

No amount of rhetoric will change the fact that Mormons are Christian.

Assumes a fact not in evidence. Question-begging in asserting as "fact" exactly the point in dispute. Assumes your right to define terms. And does not answer the way I put it, which is "Mormons are not Christians on any grounds that Catholics/Presbyterians/Lutherans/other-Great-Apostates are too."

No amount of rhetoric, "you're-a-bigot" special pleading will (and this is the real point) give your church the right to define who is a Christian, binding upon others. Which it plainly does claim. And no amount of whinnying from one man will change what your church teaches about baptism, the priesthood and the Great Apostasy.

It's amazing the lack of respect that you give to your fellow man.

I refer the honorable gentleman to my note of 952pm last night and advise that he keep in mind the next time he might try to smear others.

yet you would say that I am not Christian because my beliefs differ from yours. That is bigotry sir.

No, it is a descriptive fact. Bryce, you are engaging in the most unpleasant of contemporary mores -- parroting "bigot! bigot! polly wanna cracker! bigot! bigot!"

If I walked up to the Dalai Lama or Osama bin Laden or Barbra Streisand or Aishwarya Rai and said "you are not a Christian," I would have no basis for saying that other than "their beliefs."

Now you will no doubt say, "that is different, they don't claim to be Christian" ... which is obviously true, but is only dispositive if "Christian" means "everybody who makes any claim to be Christian" -- and that's linguistic nihilism that empties the term "Christian" (or any other term one chooses to apply this definitional standard to) of any substantive content.

Further, it is truly nauseating to hear this kind of cheap relativism coming from a church which, when the question is on the other foot, says quite bluntly and always has that other claimants to Christianity are not Christians -- on the basis of objective criteria (an invalid priesthood and lack of divine authority).

Yes, Bryce, it does; the intention of the checklist, its length and the use of a 10-point scale, is to attempt to balance the connotations. That balance, too, is dependent on the user, who can bring a bias to any or all of the items on the list.

No tool is perfect. Isaac, while admittedly a bit full of himself, readily admits that the tool has room for improvement.

Well, after having been called a bigot for stating that Mormons are not Christians on exactly the terms that Mormons say Catholics aren't Christians, you'll excuse me for not joing the levity.

Mormons don't say that Catholics aren't Christians. Ask any Mormon. Ask any Mormon authority. For Mormons the question of the validity of baptism has nothing to do with who is or is not a Christian. It may be in Catholicism, but Mormons aren't Catholics.

Merry Christmas.

I would have a problem with it. The fact is, Mormons are Christians, and we are followers of Christ. We may be a different kind of Christian, but Christian nonetheless.

Bryce, I'm a pagan. Welcome to my world.

The truth will always prevail, Osvaldo. I'm not going to let down my doctrines, principles, faith, beliefs, or anything else which is not in accordance with truth. The truth wins out every time. There is a force out there that is bound and determined to destroy the Lord's work. It will never happen, but we can do our part in protecting and defending the kingdom of God. We have covenanted to do so.

Truth is not relative. There is one Truth, and it is Christ and His gospel. If Truth were not absolute then we would never know right or wrong, good or evil, light or dark. Oh, yes, there is an absolute Truth all right, and it is our life's mission to find it, and then live it.

"If there was originally only one Adam and Eve"

ORIGINALLY there was "Adam" and Lillith. Eve came later.

After a quick scan of all the responses to this pieces I have discerned this - everyone is quizing each other. This is, by my reading, about quizing the candidates. So if we were to assemble a 100 questions test, what questons shoud be on it? I propose it reflect not their faith but their understanding of religions experienced by the people they would serve. Can they separate Christian Science from Scientology? How differentiating about Santeria from Ave Maria? My favorite is telling the difference between Church of Christ and UNITED Church of Christ (there are plenty!). Or simply, Protestant from Catholic, episcopal from free church, cult from sect. I suggest short answer rather than multiple guess or short essays. This would not be a direct faith statement from each one, but that would be too risky for any one candidate. I would prefer to know they at least appreciate the complexity of the constituency. Maybe an extra credit could be given for composing one of the NPR "This I Beleive" essays.

So anyone want to suggest questions? No trick questions or double meanings - I am not sure these characters would be good with nuance or shading of questions. Creativity and humor will go better than theological or ecclesiastical pontificating. Have fun.

And of course, what Jestrfy (?) is proposing is not a religious test but a religious exam. Is this consistent with the Constitution?

ReP, I couldn't agree with you more. I squirmed when Romney made his speech. No way in the world I'm going to vote for him, or anybody else who accepts the notion that is is any of the voting public's business how or whether he worships.

Also, now that I think of it, anybody who calls himself a biblical literalist should be required to pass a biblical literacy test and give chapter and verse to support anything he claims "the Bible says."

Marian, your critique of my employment example was well taken. That thread doesn't seem to be continuing, so I'm mentioning it here.

To the topic: c'mon, my friends. High school students don't know basic geography. How can you expect them to know anything about religion?

My anecdotal view is of an ironic justice: religious conservatives being the biggest proponents of (killing public education) No Child Left Behind (for Lahaye to mourn), with its focus on teaching to tests, should take this ignorance of religion as a clear sign of the success of their education (sabotage) agenda.

Joan of Arc was
1. a saint
2. a witch
3. a heretic
4. Noah's wife
5. All of the above
6. None of the above
7. 1,2,and 3

The Good Samaritan was
1. a hospital administrator
2. a Muslim saint
3. the prophet Samuel's mother
4. a character in a NT parable

The Holy Trinity consists of the _________, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:

1. Godfather
2. Father

Lilith was
1. Adam's first wife
2. a character on Frazer
3. the Virgin Mary's first cousin
4. Mohammed's daughter

Fatima was
1. the site of an apparition of the Virgin Mary
2. Mohammed's daughter
3. Both of the above
4. Neither of the above

Okay, I'm getting frivolous AND esoteric, a bad combination.

Christian dogma is:

1) not so bad, once you get the hang of it.
2) a figment of Christian haters' imaginations.
3) a rare breed of canine.
4) the most complex set of theological statements in the history of humanity.

[Sorry, couldn't resist...]

You made a bad assumption, Marian, but understandably: I am a pagan, and my facetious commentary is as an outsider to Christianity.

In the same vein, polytheisms are in gestalt more complex, arguably, but people tend to gravitate to just one or two deities and focus their worship thereto. The comparison is not equitable. Buddhism is actually much simpler than it would appear, because it always starts from nothingness and just works its way out; it is not a structured system, so one could also argue that it's one of the simplest dogmas.

Besides, how do you know that I intended #4 to be the "right answer"?

;-D

Looks like I made a bad assumption. Sorry 'bout that.

I suppose that, from an academic POV, there are some belief systems that are more complex than Christianity.

I've been anti-dogma all my life. One could argue that I never matured beyond the rebellion of the teenage years. I also tend to give serious theologians hot foots, just to keep them moving. ;-)

How about:

"Love your neighbor as yourself" first appeared in:

1) Ben Franklin's Almanac
2) Polonius' speech in Hamlet
3) The Gospel of Mark
4) Deuteronomy

"God helps those who help themselves" first appeared in:

1) Ben Franklin's Almanac
2) Polonius' speech in Hamlet
3) The Gospel of Mark
4) Deuteronomy
5) The Letter of Paul to the Dontoclasians

"It's a secularist religious test for public office, the liberal's excuse for saying, "I can't vote for Huckabee because a man who won't believe in evolution, his judgment is fatally flawed."

Since when does "science = religion?" Evolution = Science. Good science. Really really good science. As in, every scientific development over the last 150 years has supported Darwinian evolution, even as our scientific methods and tools have improved by leaps and bounds. Every accredited scientist (especially those in biology, whose job it is to study plants and animals) is convinced by the wealth of evidence accumulated over the years to support evolution. There is lots of evidence for it.

How much evidence is there for creationism? Well, a book was written between 2000-3000 years ago that said the human race was created by God and then two people created all the people on the planet, who were then wiped out by a gigantic flood. Then the planet was repopulated Noah's family. Over the course of the next 2000 years, the entire planet was repopulated, including the southern tip of Africa, the entire North and South American continents (possibly by tribes of Israel, if you as Mitt Romney), basically everywhere but Antarctica. Pretty impressive for just a handful of people and two of every animal, huh? Probably the single best thing ever.

Creationism seems really, really likely. There's a lot of evidence for it, certainly.

All together, say it with me: "Science does not equal religion. Therefore, not voting for Mike Huckabee because he doesn't believe in evolution isn't submitting him to a religious test of office. It is submitting him to a scientific test for office, which is smart."

Our leaders should be smart. Is that so much to ask?"

Jestrfyl, you remind me of a bumper sticker I've seen: my karma beats your dogma. For the believer in the former, it also works on several levels. :-)

Ehhhhhh, wiseguy, eh?

A bumper sticker I will acquire soon: Using turn signals is not giving secrets to the enemy.

To which I will now add an order for: WWJD? Use the turn signals!

Jestrfyl, the exact sticker is Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy", and you can order it from my friend Nancy at http://www.nancybuttons.com/

She really is my friend and neighbor. She has a great selection of buttons as well (as one might expect).

An embarrassment of riches, to be sure... but that was a bit of shameless promotion there, as well. If you are moved to do so, I encourage you to do business with her.

I will be sure to pass on your book suggestion. It's a good one. :-)