A religious "war"?
Wednesday December 12, 2007
Scary times. The newest salvo in the burgeoning religious "war" in our country comes from an AP article about a story that will appear Sunday in The New York Times. In the article, Huckabee apparently asks: ...''Don't Mormons believe that...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
About J-Walking
This blog is no longer updated and is closed for comments. We welcome your comments about Christianity in our Christianity forums.
Read David Kuo's bioSearch This Blog
All it would take for either of them to end the so-called "war" is to state, "I'm running for President. I'm not going to discuss my religion or my opponent's religion. Now, ask me anything about governing this nation."
Now there's a crazy idea.
Yeah, it's so crazy it just might work. :-)
I'm hoping you are prophetic.
You mean like the Constitution says? What a concept!
I'm going to be a contrarian on this subject.
Two related points:
The Republican Party for the last 20+ years have been running on the idea that they are the 'faith and values' party - with the implication, sometimes directly stated, that the Democrats are a bunch of atheistic moral relativists (Hi Donny). When a party has run so long on the idea of faith and values, it is not unreasonable to inquire about the details of the faith and values of those who would be the leader of that party.
The majority of liberal secular humanists, like myself, would have been perfectly happy to keep religion a private matter and to restrict the discussion in the Public Square to Civil Matters. Really, really, we would have been.
However, for various reasons, organized religious groups and operatives in the Republican Party have insisted that Religion has a place in the Public Square. In fact, the Republican Party went so far as to link the ideas Faith and Civil society by creating a department of "Faith-Based and Community Initiatives".
You might have heard of this, David...
Well folks, now you've got it. Religion is in the Public Square and has moved into the Town Hall Debates. The Republican Party branded itself as the Party of God and now you see the results.
I'm sorry but I think you might be going light on Huckabee. To ask the question is completely appropriate in books, online or from the missionaries who will probably be back tomorrow or Friday. But if he asked the question at a news event, then Huckabee should have to confront the suspicion that he brought it up to emphasize the cultishness of Romney's religion. Romney probably deserves that after immigrant-baiting Huckabee but we deserve better.
"First of all, so what? That Gov. Huckabee asks that question is fine. It is reasonable and rational and there isn't a thing wrong with it. It is not intolerance to ask questions about other religions. It isn't intolerance to think or debate or doubt or celebrate or believe. This is actually called religious pluralism."
Now I'd like to ask a question.
Doesn't Mike Huckabee think Mormons and homosexuals are gonna burn in a lake of fire for eternity?
David,
I like you. I grew up Evangelical. But, you of all people should know that asking just one question and not multiple questions with a context is a way to make people look bad.
Huckabee has gone from the high rode to the low road in just a week. I thought he wasn't gonna even bring up the Mormon faith.
Well, he's doing it.
Evangelical power lust actually turns people off. I know from experience in Campus Crusade for Christ that little questions like that only solidify Mormons in their own belief.
I'm not Mormon by any stretch; so, I'm not defending their beliefs. I do know that many Evangelicals are chomping at the bit so badly to discredit the LDS church that the questions they pose have nothing to do with the current/actual spirit of LDS teachings. So, in most cases LDS people just take Evangelicals as mean-spirited liars who resort to cheap shots.
If you're concerned with saving souls; rather than winning elections, for a political party (GOP), in what is just a parenthesis in eternity, DON'T CONDONE CHEAP SHOTS.
Huckabee isn't retracting comments about quarantining AIDS patients (i.e., treating them like lepers). If he really wants to represent Jesus, he can start retracting and stop asking questions.
Another point being missed here is that Huckabee deserves extra scrutiny because he is running as God's candidate. When he runs a commercial that says he's a "Christian Leader," when he goes to the Values Voter some and calls himself "not...one who comes to you, but one who comes from you," when he attributes his bump in the polls to divine intervention, he is clearly the one putting it on the table. You can't play the God card, then call it discrimination if you get more religious scrutiny than the other candidates. That'd be cultivated victimization.
I agree we should let politicians determine theology since they've done such an effective job of everything else.
Dave, you are getting too involved in this anti-Mormon thing. You are loosing your perspective and objectivity. Remember, your integrity and reputation are at stake. If you want to be taken seriously as a reliable source you have got to drop this nonsense. This line of thinking is precisely why the founding fathers wanted to keep an inviolate distance between church and state. People get too parochial when questions of their faith are in the political mix. Huck is being hammered because he forgot this rule. It is legitimate to hammer him because he has stepped over the line and has made no bones about it. In fact he wants to capitalize on it to the detriment of our country. He may think he is God's candidate, but the rest of us, who also live in this nation, have other ideas. The last thing we want is a Republican version of Jimmy Carter. The more people like you defend this guy's tactics the more you perpetuate the notion that Evangelicals are narrow minded bigots.
Acutally, if you read Mormon scripture, it says the Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. According to them, one of the gods(yes they believe in many gods) was needed to go and become a human and die to save all humans. Lucifer volunteered to do this, but supposedly he wanted to do so for selfish reasons and planned to force everyone to be good, so Jesus was selected because he planned to let people choose good or evil. Then Lucifer became angry and then somehow became the devil and now tries to get as many people to choose evil as he can.
Some of the details are a bit blurry since it's been a while since I last read it, but I know with 100% certianty that the Mormon text declares that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, and "The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism" is incorrect. Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel is what is written in the Bible, and while the Mormons do believe in the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly", their other writings from their "prophets" contradict this.
David:
If you believe that Mormons are not Christian and that America should not have a non-Christian (or at least non-Judeo-Christian) president, JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT!!!
David M:
Are you referring to some canon outside the Book of Mormon, or is the Jesus-Devil-brothers line in the BOM? I was taking the Encyclopedia of Mormonism at face value.
Is
>>If you believe that Mormons are not Christian and that
>>America should not have a non-Christian (or at least
>>non-Judeo-Christian)president, JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT!!!
You're probably responding to the author of the article and not me, but I can explain it for you.
It is the Mormons who are anti-Christian. Historically, we have Christianity for 1800 years, then Joseph Smith comes along and says 'No, all current churches are in a state of apostacy, and that God appeared to me and said he wants me to start the one true church'. Then Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon, which he claims to have translated from some golden plates, about the supposed history of some Hebrews who sailed acrossed the Atlantic in 500B.C. and eventually became the Native Americans. The Book includes peoples, places, and events that modern Archeology not only has no evidence for, but contradicts as well. To add even more shame to the Mormon Church, they own the 'Hill Kumorah'(I prob spelled it wrong) in New York, where the Book of Mormon says a huge battle took place and to which they have annual re-enactments of, but yet they never have done any digs to attempts to find evidence (or they did, but never found anything so they never told anyone about it). Does anyone have a guess as to why this is? You can go over to the Middle East and visit the ruins a dozens of sites mentioned in the Bible, so where are these places menitioned in the Book of Mormon?
This may not be "politically correct", but anyone who believes Mormonism to be true has lost touch with reality. Go read a history book without the word 'mormon' in the title. It's sad that people deliberalty choose to believe lies even though the truth is right in front of their face.
Dan, it is probably located in the other Mormon book, the Doctrine & Covenants, though I'm not 100% sure since it been a while since I last read through. Much of the Book of Mormon is a history, though there is some other stuff in there. The Doctrine & Covenants is where most of the theological differences come up between Christianity and Mormonism. Joseph Smith talks about how it was "revealed" to him that God started out as a man and was able to become a god by living a good life, and that we also can do the same. He also said that the most important step in becoming a god is to marry multiple wives, which is how Mormon theology says spirit babes are created, men become gods and then they resurrect their wives and have spirit babies with them. Many Mormon Churches have abandoned plural marriage, even though Joseph Smith stated it was an everlasting convenant and the most important step to becoming a god, so this has caused a large divison amounst the Mormons.
I agree with Mr Kuo...Real Issues and running the country and fixing its problems are what we should be blogging about. Neither Huckabee or Romney have inferred that their religion was the answer to this countries woes. But we are not blogging about their stance on issues that affect everyone, are we? It would seem that if we all worked together for the common good we would not be bickering over who has a better take on religion.
People do vote for their leaders. How many vote??? I believe less than 30% of them do most of the time. Maybe more but not much more in a presidential election. And why is that? Or better yet, why do so few people vote at all for a certain leader? Is it passion, charisma, or leadership? It certainly isn't because they are well read about the issues.
Come November, I hope that the reason we are electing a president isn't because he has a $500 dollar haircut or is he/she is the favorite of a TV talkshow host. I'd hope for a candidate who will lead this nation to enact changes to make this country greater than it already is - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever.
I thought the thrust of this piece was a discussion of how the abuse of religious ideals is adversely affecting the campaign. If someone wants to plumb the depths of Mormon theology, I am willing to do so. I think, though, David wants comments on HIS topic. But there are enough Mormons here who can do an adequate job of defending the faith if some wants to ask serious questions.
>>>
Neither Huckabee or Romney have inferred that their religion was the answer to this countries woes.
Posted by: Russ Davis | December 12, 2007 3:11 PM
>>>
Incorrect - Google the following:
huckabee + "take this nation back for Christ"
Also, you used inferred when you should have written implied.
David M.:
You are correct, my comments were addressed to David K., our blogmaster.
Carry on.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.