I believe that our country is a secular nation founded on Christian principles. I think this is a good thing as the New Testament does not imply any governmental system or theocracy (the one that is to come is definitely not democratic but is instead ruled by the perfect monarch Jesus Himself). That said, I will not vote for a person in a cult. The general dialogue from the talking heads are quick to tell us that my values are the same as a Mormons but that is not really the issue. I believe that cults rely on poor logic and scary appeals to authority. Christianity has a rich heritage of struggling with the interaction of faith and reason in our understanding of how biblical authority is to be understood. I believe that a good Christian will view the Word of God as their authority rather than a certain teacher or leader. This sounds obvious but the way we use Scripture or not demonstrates that for many in the Christian community this is lip service. When a teacher stands up and declares thus saith the Lord without constraining themselves to the Word of God they are entering into cult territory. When a person believes in and participates in a cult they are giving away their reason to blindly follow someone who says believe me because I said so. Mormonism appeals to the divine and open canon of modern day prophets whose words are equal to scripture. This is dangerous and demonstrates to me that a person believing this way is unfit to make decisions for our nation requiring responsible appeals to authority. These are the kinds of appeals that constrain us to the authority of the Word that is more sure than even the voice of God from heaven.
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, (2 Peter 1:16-19 ESV)
It is a scary thing to give presidential responsibilities to a man that has been led by deception and false ways. The teachings of moronism do not line up with what the Bible says. The Bible is a closed canon, there are no modern day prophets that can add or take from God's closed Word, and Jesus is the only way, truth, and life. God says this very clearly in John 14:6 and Revelation 22:18-19, "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," and "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." I believe that God makes this very clear in His Word, but without the Holy Spirit in you (which comes from real salvation, not of any of our own doing, but God's), we cannot see with eyes open.
Posted by: Melissa | October 22, 2011 at 11:07 AM
Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
While I respect the walk you are on and the life that you lead, I must vehemently disagree with you on the sentiment which you expressed in your message. Quite frankly, what you are suggesting is blatant discrimination. The idea that you would refuse to vote for someone, who you otherwise agree with on the issues, and whose fundamental values are in line with yours, which you acknowledge in your message, because they have spiritual beliefs that are not completely in line with your own, is blatant discrimination. I wish I could be more genteel in my comments, but there is unfortunately no other way to describe what you are suggesting.
With respect, how far does this viewpoint of yours go? Is it just for the president, or does this extend to the Senate and the House? What about the mayor of a city, or the city counsel? How about judges?
If you don't want to vote for a candidate because their policy positions are not in line with yours, you feel they are unprincipled, or it is against your vital interests, I think that's perfectly defensible. If, however, the only reason you would not vote for a candidate is because he is not a Christian, I believe that is very dangerous thinking.
It is also not fully accurate to say that we were founded upon Christian principles. While 85% of our population is Christian, and the Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, most of them were not overtly religious. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, which meant that they believed in God but believed that once God created the world, he ceased intervening in the personal affairs of the populace. That goes directly against Christian theology, and the theological beliefs of many other religions, that God has a personal relationship with His believers and that His hand is at work in each and every one of our lives. To say that we were founded upon Christian principles is to deny what is undeniable, which is that the Founding Fathers, for the most part, did not believe that God has an interventionist role in our lives, and that it is His plan at work, which is a bedrock principle of Christianity.
I think what you are suggesting is tremendously misguided. There are many Christians who go to church every week yet make little to no attempt to live according to the Bible, which they profess to support and believe in. They make no attempt to live in the spirit, or to conform their lives to the principles of Christianity. They believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or at least profess to, but yet they excessively use drugs or alcohol, focus almost exclusively on themselves rather than others, which is directly contrary to what Jesus taught, and go home to their boyfriend or girlfriend to have sex.
These people, I presume, you would vote for, because they say they are Christian. However, you'd refuse to support a Mormon, Muslim or Buddhist who devoutly follows their faith and lives according to the very principles Christ taught. That is fundamentally illogical.
I can guarantee you that the way I life my own life, as a non-Christian, is more in line with what Christ teaches than many people who profess to be Christian. Yet, you would support those Christians, yet fail to support me. That is not only illogical and discriminatory, it is fundamentally dangerous, and completely incompatible with a worldview which seeks to advance and nurture the very principles which you profess to support.
Do I have it wrong? Maybe your viewpoint is even more restrictive than I am aware. Maybe you wouldn't support those Christians who don't live their lives according to the Bible, but then you have another problem, which is, again, undeniable. If we only seek to support people for public office who are good Christians who live according to the Bible, then it seems to me as if we run the risk of not having very many people running our nation. What if these good, God-fearing Christians are completely incompetent at running the nation?
I think Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman, for example, are likely God-fearing Christian women, but I most definitely wouldn't want either of them anywhere near the Oval Office. Would it not be better to have a competent Mormon than an incompetent Christian, especially if that Mormon follows the vast majority of the principles which are found in the Bible, and which Jesus advocated for? What is your argument against this, beyond making baseless accusations about following a cult or being beholden to following the words of another "because I said so?" What about Catholics? Do they not follow The Pope, and see him as a conduit between themselves and God? Are Catholics part of a cult too, or is that okay, because they're Christians?
I hope that you've found my thoughts worthwhile and thought provoking. It is my hope that I may have helped you in some way.
If you have a retort to anything that I am saying, I am willing to hear it, and I will respect your right to express yourself in the way which you feel you must. I have a massive problem with the kinds of things which you are saying, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect your right to say them. I do. I just would like to hear a well-reasoned argument, beyond what you have already stated, that provides evidence that what you state is accurate, and that it should be the way that we choose people to run our nation. I thank you for your thoughts, and I look forward to reading your response. I hope that you have a wonderful day.
By the way, I'm Scott's friend, so if you think I'm crazy, you'll have to take it up with him! ;)
AMIR
Posted by: Amir Al-Kourainy | October 23, 2011 at 10:49 AM
hey amir-
my contention is that Mr Romney is part of a cult. The issue for me is that his religious belief happens to say something about his appeals to authority. i said in my article "I believe that cults rely on poor logic and scary appeals to authority."
he is not only of a different faith than mine but he is of a faith that slanders the God who i believe in and lies to say they do. there is no reasonable debate with mormons as to their belief. it is not a reasonable faith. that said i am not voting for him to be my pastor but my president. i want a president who has a reasonable worldview. here is an article from an atheist backing me up on the logic here. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/06/20/is-it-bigotry-to-not-vote-for-a-mormon/
call it what you will but his mormon faith says something about how he will govern and i am being honest about why i am discriminating against him-
Posted by: matt smith | October 29, 2011 at 11:14 PM
Thank you for your reply to my message. I appreciate hearing from you. You say that Romney is part of a cult, and that "cults rely on poor logic and scary appeals to authority." Do you have any evidence for this, or is this merely your supposition? And, as I asked you before, what is your feeling on Catholicism? Catholics believe that the Pope is a conduit between themselves and God, and follow the word of the Pope as if it was religious doctrine from God. Does that make Catholicism a cult too? If so, why would you be comfortable voting for a Catholic, but not comfortable voting for a Mormon? If not, what is the difference that you perceive that makes Catholicism okay and Mormonism not?
While I don't know all the intricacies of Mormonism and what they believe, I do have a good friend who is a Mormon. She is one of the best, most moralistic, values-centered people I know, and cares more about me than the vast majority of my other friends. Forgive me if I don't subscribe to the belief that she does not have a "reasonable faith." Faith in general is not really based on logic and rationality. Do you really believe that it is logical to believe that God created the world in a few days, that the world is only 6,000 years old, that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and that Noah and those like him lived for hundreds of years? None of these things are provable. None of them are "reasonable." Christians believe them because it is an article of faith for them. It is the same thing with every other religion. Mormonism is no different.
I read the article which you cited. I didn't see anything to substantiate what you are saying. The article said that because Mike Huckabee was a Christian, that can inform his policy positions on things like abortion, evolution and gay marriage The article talked about policy differences, not about how Mormonism was a cult or did not have a "reasonable worldview."
Mitt Romney has clear policy positions. Positions that I assume, being a religious man yourself, that you agree with. We don't need to guess at what Mitt Romney will advocate for in office because he is a Mormon. Him being a Mormon would actually make him more likely to support the policies that you do, not less. Mormons are pro-life. Mormons are pro-traditional marriage. On the cultural and moral values issues that you care about, Mormon doctrine supports your positions.
What does his Mormon faith say about how Mitt Romney will govern? I do not understand this point. Please clarify for me. I'd like to learn more.
I really don't like Mitt Romney. I will not vote for him. I think he's an unprincipled, dishonest politician that will say virtually anything to get elected, who has no observable core principles. This is why I won't vote for Mitt Romney. It has nothing to do with his religion. This is the reason you shouldn't want to vote for him either. Him being Mormon, in my view, shouldn't even be in the discussion.
Posted by: Amir Al-Kourainy | October 30, 2011 at 11:05 PM
hey amir
an extremely common definition of cultism has been used frequently that was defined articulated at an AFF/UCLA Wingspread Conference on Cultism in 1985:
Cult (totalistic type): A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. (West & Langone, 1986, pp. 119-120)
Mormon people are nop the issue but mormon ideology is. a great site to check out if you want to know the Christian perspective on mormonism is http://carm.org/mormonism, as to their deceit- it is best summed up in their milk before meat doctrine which is to present themselves as normal Christians holding back their weird doctrines until a person is committed. it is deceitful and secretive and non-rational. Put another way, milk before meat is lying. No one withholds from babies the concept of "meat" in the human diet as a deceptive tool. Mormons do withhold basic precepts from newcomers purely to deceive them. It's a plot to deceive people into joining by hiding the fact that there is any such thing as mormon doctrinal "meat." it is a main part of mormonism.
in terms of voting for a catholic -in one sense you are right i believe the catholic church is false and indeed cultish in their devotion to the pope. that said they are not deceptive in their tactics and they are open about what they do and do not believe in. mormons are not-
as to faith being reasonable- check out
http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/intermediate/the-evidence-for-christianity-reasonable-faith-lecture-all-souls-church-london-.htm
as to voting for a mormon- i do not trust Romney's faith -which is his endorsed worldview- it is on the table- let me say it this way - i like the Marriott -mormons run a good business- and i like FIve Guys - i like their hamburgers. in both of these however mormonism is not relevant to me- in politics and decision making it is and so my opinion is that mormonism is a deal breaker for me- i despise his worldview - this is my constitutional right - i am not congress and so i can give him this litmus test and it is perfectly rational to do so.
hope that helps.
Posted by: matt smith | November 04, 2011 at 09:53 AM
Thanks again for your reply to my message. I value and appreciate this discussion. I do think that you have some good points that Mormonism is not part of mainstream Christianity. So, is this your main objection to Mormonism, that you feel that they claim to be Christian yet do not believe in basic elements of Christian doctrine? Would these reservations extend to a Muslim or a Buddhist too? Would you not vote for either one of them, either? And, is this just for president, or would you feel similarly about casting your vote for a judgeship, the city council, or Congressman?
One thing that I still do not understand is how Romney's religion, his "world view," as you call it, will impact his decision making in office? I would appreciate it if you could explain that to me, because I still do not understand that, and you have provided no concrete examples or evidence to substantiate this point of view. In your earlier post, you said that his Mormon faith "says something about how he will govern." This, I agree, is relevant, but not explained. What does Romney's faith say about how he will govern?
Posted by: Amir Al-Kourainy | November 05, 2011 at 08:35 AM
worldview is the matrix we make decisions from. romney who has made it apparent that his mormon faith is very important to him is not shy about this facts as he tries to appeal to values voters. that said the number one thing that affects me is that i dont trust his capacity to tell the truth to get his way. being that mormonism is built on not telling the truth at the front end, by appealing to its similarities to other beliefs. it is only later that the weird stuff comes out. my vote is not only on policy amir but also on who i want to represent me. the president is a symbol as well as a policy maker. his policies notwithstanding the thrust of my article was on the fact and symbol of his office- i simply dont want someone who lies to say they believe the same thing as me in office legitimizing their false faith as being mainstream. this is a real concern and it is frankly why someone like a catholic or even a muslim is less offensive in this regard- they do not claim to represent me with their worldview.
Posted by: matt smith | November 05, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Thank you for your reply, Matt. You are certainly a passionate advocate for your position, which is always a good thing in my book! I think we are getting to the heart of your discomfort with Romney. Is it the fact that you feel he lies and distorts concerning his religion, and you do not want to "legitimize" his faith by electing him president, which will, in your view, give credence and support to the idea that Mormonism is a branch of Christianity? Or, is it because, in you view, his religion is one that is deceitful, and this gives a window into how he may lie and distort as President, and you feel this informs how he will act when seeking to make decisions as President of the United States? Is it the latter, or the former, or both, and which is the stronger concern and driver for you?
Posted by: Amir Al-Kourainy | November 07, 2011 at 07:36 AM
that is a good question -i probably vacillate between the views you mention depending on what Romney is saying at the moment ( i used to live in Boston) :) i am not sure i have been too careful to distinguish but for certain it is all of those elements you mention. Thanks for framing my thoughts so well -you are a refreshing person to talk with Amir...maybe we will see you at church some time- open invitation.
Posted by: matt smith | November 07, 2011 at 09:06 PM
Question is...now that it looks like an adulterous, thrice-divorced, Catholic might be nominated, can you vote for him?
Posted by: Charles Bronson | December 03, 2011 at 07:26 PM
good question Charles- having had much more time to think on the issue- if the thrice divorced catholic is not claiming to be of the same faith as myself-perhaps.
Posted by: matt smith | January 04, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Interesting answer...By that logic you are saying you could vote for a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc as long as he doesn't claim to be of your faith?
What duty do we have as christians to vote for a someone who hasn't committed his life to Jesus? These questions are especially important in light of the fact that the none of the likely Republican nominees for president are from what you consider christian faiths. As a pastor, do you really advocate voting for a candidate whom you call non-christian from the pulpit?
Americans are very good at rationalizing away their core beliefs to suit their short-term needs. We, as christians, should not rely on flimsy constitutionalist arguments to make sure our political party wins the White House. Your "perhaps" should be "never".
Posted by: Charles Bronson | January 23, 2012 at 11:28 PM