The first proposition of last night's Pigfest was timely.
"Those who claim that it is wrong for a Christian to vote for a Mormon are wrong."
I agreed with this proposition. The God-ordained role of government is to preserve order and promote justice (Rom 13). We ought to elect leaders who have integrity and strong morals who will carry out that task faithfully and capably. Whether they are Christians or not is irrelevant. Besides, all of them claim to be Christians anyway (including the Dems) ... except Romney. A person's religion, therefore, is not terribly helpful or relevant to our voting decision.
Would a Romney presidency help the Mormon church grow? Undoubtedly. Still, that should be low consideration when it comes to choosing our next leader. Whether Romney is your man or not, your focus should be on the candidate's integrity, his commitment to justice, his moral values, and his view of the proper role of government in society.
I would agree that we shouldn't choose to not vote for a certain candidate merely because he or she isn't a Christian, but with Romney, the fact that he has apparently fully embraced the Mormon faith makes me question his judgment. Would you agree with the proposition that a Christian should be skeptical of those candidates who have rejected Christian teaching?
Posted by: Steve Clarke | January 20, 2008 at 13:54
"Would you agree with the proposition that a Christian should be skeptical of those candidates who have rejected Christian teaching?"
Interesting question. I think Christians ought to be skeptical of all the candidates, to be honest. We need to make sure they aren't just pandering and tickling ears for votes.
Help me out a bit with your question. What do you mean by "Christian teaching". Are you talking about teaching on justice? Are you talking about teaching on prayer? Salvation by faith? Can you be more specific?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 21, 2008 at 10:33
I support your proposition.
Does this mean you recognize that the "Huckaboom" has gone bust?
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 22, 2008 at 09:56
Mr. Dawntreader, by "Christian teaching" I mean the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, viz. salvation by grace through faith, inerrancy of the Bible.
Rob, your comment appears to me to be sort of a non sequitur. Perhaps Huckabee has no chance, but while he is in the race, I will still support him.
Posted by: Steve Clarke | January 22, 2008 at 14:36
Mr. Dawntreader, I guess what I'm getting at is this: is it legitimate for a Christian voter to consider a candidate's religious beliefs in deciding whether to vote for him? I agree that Christians be skeptical of all candidates and do not support some sort of blind allegiance to the first candidate who says he is a Christian. Nonetheless, I'm seeking to test the limits of your adherence to the proposition. Does/should the religion of a candidate play no role in your evaluation of whether or not to support him?
Posted by: Steve Clarke | January 22, 2008 at 14:42
"Rob, your comment appears to me to be sort of a non sequitur."
Perhaps I should make the connection clearer. The proposition seems to reference Republican candidate Mitt Romney. It implies that it is not wrong to vote for him. Mr. Dawntreader has shown, in my opinion, a clear preference for Mike Huckabee. I infer that Mr. Dawntreader is thinking ahead to the time when Huckabee's candidacy ends, as it will, short of the nomination. Is Romney his second choice? I do not conclude this, but I do infer it.
I'm all for you and Mr. Dawntreader supporting the candidate of your choice, Steve. I agree with you that perceived viability is not the be-all and end-all of one's voting decision. I like Bill Richardson, and he ain't going anywhere except maybe a VP slot. ;-)
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 22, 2008 at 16:12
Well, I always took Mr. Dawntreader as more of a Fred Thompson man, and I think he has disavowed any supposed loyalty to Huckabee. With Fred out of the race (a few days too late to help out Huck), perhaps you're right that Mr. Dawntreader is considering supporting Romney. Ultimately, it would seem that Romney is a plastic-looking Northeasterner who will get creamed as a flip-flopper in the general election. In other words, he is the Republican John Kerry.
Posted by: Steve Clarke | January 23, 2008 at 10:22
For the record, Mr. D. explicitly stated elsewhere (our marathon Iowa thread, perhaps?) that he is not a Huckabee supporter. But he didn't say who he does support, and strongly hinted that he's undecided.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 24, 2008 at 17:07
"Mr. Dawntreader, I guess what I'm getting at is this: is it legitimate for a Christian voter to consider a candidate's religious beliefs in deciding whether to vote for him?
...
Nonetheless, I'm seeking to test the limits of your adherence to the proposition."
I don't find a strong Biblical argument for restricting our vote to Christian leaders. Granted, we are acting on Biblical principles and there are not specific verses to direct us in regards to voting. Yet, we find these amazing words in the book of 1 Peter chapter 2.
13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Honor the emperor? Do you know who most scholars agree was emperor when 1 Peter was written? None other then Nero!
The function of the government is to punish evil and to praise those who do good. In other words, to promote justice (i.e. punish evil) and preserve order (i.e. praise those who are good citizens).
I think we can agree that non-Christians are capable of that mission.
Should we completely ignore a candidate's religious belief? No, of course not. But it seems to me that it should be secondary to other concerns.
Now, if someone from the Jonestown cult ran for president, I think your argument gets much stronger! I admit I would be hard-pressed to ignore something like that.
But God has seen fit to use non-believers all through history to further his means. Case in point, Artaxerxes in the book of Nehemiah ... Pharaoh in the time of Joseph ... etc
Steve, what is your view?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 24, 2008 at 18:36
re: Mr. D's endorsement.
I will vote for any republican candidate that can fog a mirror when held under his nose. Yes, I would vote for crazy Ron Paul ahead of Clinton. All the republicans, even the RINOs, are way ahead of Clinton.
"Mr. Dawntreader has shown, in my opinion, a clear preference for Mike Huckabee."
I like Huckabee. I find him fascinating. I think he has a quick wit and scores high marks in terms of likability. I can't believe he has made it this far. I predicted Huck would get knocked out in the first-round along with Ron Paul. I was wrong. That said, I don't support him at this point. I am not convinced he understands foreign policy very well. He strikes me as another Carter which is frightening. I think he would pick good judges, and I love the fair tax idea. But he is not my candidate.
"Well, I always took Mr. Dawntreader as more of a Fred Thompson man, and I think he has disavowed any supposed loyalty to Huckabee."
True. I liked Fred. Very disappointed in his lackluster campaign and all of his foot dragging. His heart was not in it. Not sure what was motivating Fred, to be honest.
"perhaps you're right that Mr. Dawntreader is considering supporting Romney."
Given McCain and Romney, I pick Romney. McCain hit it out of the park with his unwavering support of the surge. At least he understands a true foreign threat when he sees one. I trust him as our military leader. Unfortunately, that is about where the warm fuzzies stop with McCain. The press seems to love him though. I guess that is a plus.
I am kind of backpedaling towards Romney only because of years of disliking RINO's like McCain.
I like that Romney has executive experience. His stated positions are good. His biggest problems are image (plastic, perfect looks, perfect family, etc). At least he doesn't create the fingernail on the chalk board effect of a Hillary.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 24, 2008 at 18:52
Methinks you missed a close italics tag, there, Mr. D.
Anyway, I'm wondering why you think the RINO tag applies to McCain but not to Romney?
Posted by: tgirsch | January 24, 2008 at 19:03
McCain has a well established history of being a RINO. He prides himself on it. The press loves to play it up to ... how he appeals to independents and all.
Romney may be a RINO. He flip flopped from a liberal to a conservative. He certainly has the potential to be a RINO. Where is the record of him acting liberally after his ideological conversion?
Tgirsch, let me ask you a question and I would like a straight honest answer. Which republican candidate do you think will be harder for Hillary to defeat? No snark. Straight answer requested (please :) ).
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 24, 2008 at 19:10
I have no doubt that God can, does and will use non-Christian leaders to further his plan for the world. I admit I don't really know if this means that Christians should care more about just electing the leader with the best policy ideas rather than the one who is on his knees in earnest prayer every day.
My concern with Romney is that it appears as though he actually believes Mormon teaching. I realize that Mormonism is a lot more "mainstream" and less scary than what Jim Jones was selling, but it has been labeled a cult in many circles and their teachings are often obviously wrong or have been amended in order to make them fit with our current knowledge of the world. It is somewhat disturbing that someone who apparently has chosen to ignore those controversies is now poised to ascend to the highest office in the nation.
Yet, reluctantly, I find myself acknowledging that this is coming down to a 2-man race for the Republican nomination, with Romney and McCain being the 2 men. And faced with that choice, I'm inclined toward Romney, although I wonder about his electability.
Posted by: Steve Clarke | January 25, 2008 at 08:36
"My concern with Romney is that it appears as though he actually believes Mormon teaching."
Can you provide an example of Romney's commitment to orthodox Mormon views ... at least one example that causes you problems.
"I'm inclined toward Romney, although I wonder about his electability."
That pretty well sums up my view. Faced with the prospects of Hillaryism, electability is actually an important consideration. I know that smacks of pragmatism. I concede that.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 25, 2008 at 10:01
Mr. D:
No snark at all. I think a Clinton vs. McCain matchup would be much tougher than a Clinton vs. Romney matchup. This because when you get right down to it, McCain is actually quite conservative on most issues, but has the image of being more moderate. Meanwhile, Clinton has a reputation for being a lot more liberal than she actually is.
Given that the voters in the middle decide elections, and given that McCain is perceived as more moderate than he actually is while Clinton is perceived as being more liberal (less moderate) than she actually is, that would be by far the tougher matchup. I don't think there's any question.
Romney, on the other hand, is Kerry with an R after his name. His patrician way of speaking and his propensity for gaffes will get him destroyed in the media.
Now that I've answered your question, I'll ask you one: Who do you think would be easier to beat in a general, Clinton or Obama?
P.S. What makes you think I would offer anything less than a straight, honest answer? I have to say, I'm a little taken aback! :)
Posted by: tgirsch | January 25, 2008 at 11:55
"Who do you think would be easier to beat in a general, Clinton or Obama?"
I think Obama will be harder to beat because of his charisma and charm.
Clinton is a street fighter and will be very tough to beat ... but easier to beat than Obama.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 26, 2008 at 17:59
I don't know that I can give you an example about Romney's Mormonism because he is incredibly evasive about it in his public comments. I suppose I am assuming that he embraces most of Mormon theology, some of which, from what I understand, appears to have been disproven. Take the current controversy over amending the preface to the Book of Mormon regarding the ancestry of Native Americans. It seems to be a tacit admission that the Mormons have been wrong about it, but the LDS authorities are spinning it as somehow perfectly consistent with what they've been saying all along. This kind of doubletalk and revisionism seems to me all-too common in the Mormon church, and it makes me wonder whether Romney has just unquestioningly accepted it--and if so, what else he might unquestioningly accept.
Posted by: Steve Clarke | January 28, 2008 at 11:07
Steve, how many mainstream catholics hang on every word handed down from the pope? How many are catholics because they have always been catholics and don't truly live their lives as such? or for that matter how many people say they are Christians but don't let the teachings of Christ actually influence how they live their lives?
I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with Romney, I don't know much about him, but it seems more likely to me. Maybe I'm way off here.
Posted by: Matt | January 29, 2008 at 17:06
Matt,
I understand your point, but my experience is that the Catholic Church has a much higher tolerance for internal dissent than does the Mormon Church, which seems to be defined by its rigid adherence to order and rules that are inculcated at childhood. Again, it is just my experience, from the Mormons I knew growing up and in law school, that Mormons who rebel against their church's teachings yet still call themselves Mormon are rare.
Make no mistake, I would approach self-proclaimed "Christian" candidates with the same sort of skepticism. But consider how you might feel if a Scientologist were running for President. Would that affect your evaluation of his or her judgment? I know it would affect mine.
Posted by: Steve Clarke | January 30, 2008 at 12:34
"But consider how you might feel if a Scientologist were running for President. Would that affect your evaluation of his or her judgment? I know it would affect mine."
Good point. I must admit that it would affect mine too.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 30, 2008 at 18:41
Mr. D:
I must admit that it would affect mine too.
Well, mine too, but that's not unreasonable. Those guys are nuts! :)
But back to the McCain as RINO thing. RINO means "Republican In Name Only," and I don't think that tag is fairly applied to McCain. He doesn't vote the party line 100% of the time, true, but I bet it's well over 90% of the time. He's a consistent supporter of the war, which Democrats aren't. About the only major issues he differs with the party line over are torture and tax cuts during war time. How does that make one a RINO?
(Actually, in the current congress, he's missed a lot of votes because of his presidential run. He's been involved in 20 votes, and he crossed party lines 3 times out of those 20, and in two of those three cases, more Republicans voted with the Dems than against them; in the third case, it was just under half the Republicans voting with the Dems.)
Posted by: tgirsch | January 30, 2008 at 21:22