Romney retreats from “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind” blur-the-distinctions line, falls back to weaker, compromising, pragmatic, “different faiths, same values” line delivered through screen of Evangelical surrogates—conclusion: Romney’s “speech” failed completely

“Locked in a potentially fateful battle for evangelical Iowa caucus goers with Mike Huckabee, God-o-Meter has learned that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has enlisted prominent evangelical publicist Mark DeMoss to tape ads on his behalf for broadcast on Iowa Christian radio,” writes preposterously monikered G-d-o-Meter in a belief.net G-d-o-Meter post titled Romney Taps Top Evangelicals for New Ads

DeMoss tells God-o-Meter that he taped roughly a half-dozen such spots after landing in Iowa on Monday evening and that well-know evangelical legal advocate Jay Sekulow and pro-life activist James Bopp. Jr. have been tapped to record similar spots.

“I spoke as an evangelical southern Baptist as to why I had chosen to support Mitt Romney,” DeMoss said in an interview Monday night, noting that he penned three of the spots himself and also worked from three or four other scripts that the Romney campaign had developed. “[The ads] speak to both his values and his competence.”

DeMoss did not know which of his spots would be aired or when, but he expected Iowa Christian radio stations to begin carrying some this week. A Romney spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A former chief of staff to the Moral Majority’s Jerry Falwell, DeMoss is founder of The DeMoss Group, a top Christian PR firm. His clients have included Billy Graham, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Promise Keepers. He has never previously appeared in an ad for a candidate for office, even for Romney. DeMoss said he’ll remain in Iowa through this Wednesday, spending time addressing pastors on Romney’s behalf.

“I’m trying to persuade pastors that it’s important that candidates share our values and that if there is more than one than one that shares our values, then I want to pick the most competent and most experienced,” DeMoss said.

“I believe there are lots of people who are supporting Governor Huckabee merely because of his faith, without regard for anything else. I’ll ask them what they know about [Huckabee] and the answer I get is that he stands up for Christ.”

“We don’t apply that standard in selecting a doctor or somebody to build our house,” DeMoss continued, “So why would we apply it to picking a president?”

DeMoss began helping Romney last year, when he suspected that a Mormon presidential candidate would meet resistance in the evangelical community. Describing one of the radio spots he taped on Monday, he said, “As a conservative evangelical Southern Baptist, I’m supporting Mitt Romney because while we worship differently on Sundays, we share common values” … etc.

Remarks:

(1) Are the Romneys obsessed with religion?—i.e. other peoples’ religions?—or: is this Romney raging against the limit of Romney’s method of co-opting the support of rivals, opponents, or adversaries, i.e. to transform himself into the person of his rival, opponent, or adversary. Examples:

Romney transformed himself into a conservative to identify himself with the same wing of his party that doomed his father’s chances at the presidency.

Romney the self-described pro-choice, social progressive transforming himself into a conservative in advance of a national election.

And: Romney has largely gotten away with it. He always has. How can you argue against someone who suddenly agrees with you, and further claims to have always agreed with you? Answer: you can’t. OTOH, you tend to regard that person with deep suspicion.

But the Evangelical movement confronts Romney with a social and political formation that—at least at the ground level, if not among the more easily suborned elites—flatly refuses to accept Romney’s attempts to identify himself as one of their own without paying in full the price for admission that they would demand of anyone who claimed to be an Evangelical: a conversion, complete with a testimony—a real conversion this time.

(2) In Romney’s “speech” Romney identified the Mormon confession with Protestant and Catholic confessions on grounds of the name and person of Jesu Christo—the testimony of the Apostles, the creeds and canons etc., got omitted, and rightly so, but even with the omission Romney had issued a theological claim as David Kuo argues:

… But it was also a profoundly spiritual speech. He said he was going to stand up for his faith and that he wasn’t going to get into the business of theology. Then he did just that. In the middle of the speech was this:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

In that single paragraph he blew his chance to slam the door on the pastor-in-chief idea because he was, consciously or not, making the theological argument that Mormonism was basically a part of historic Christianity. And it is, in the judgment of most liberal and conservative Christian theologians, not a part of historic Christianity. The fact that we will now be debating this is evidence of the one paragraph gaffe … etc.

This we argue is—or, at least was—the “larger project” of Romney’s “speech”. Now apparently the Romneys want to forget “the speech” and move on.

(3) Romney has wisely abandoned (2) and reverted to a far less controversial and ambitious different faiths, same values line. It issues into arguments as bland, bloodless, and non-compelling as these:

“We don’t apply [the] standard [of faith] in selecting a doctor or somebody to build our house,” DeMoss continued, “So why would we apply it to picking a president?”

Romney as a “competent” mechanic? Is this the expansive vision that an aspirant to our highest office should retail? Answer: probably not.

Question: What if your mechanic represented himself or herself to you as someone, or some thing, that they were not?

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

Advertisements

  1. jlofton

    Romney Theobabble Clarifies/Explains Nothing; Reveals Ignorance Of Our Founding, Constitution

    By John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
    Recovering Republican

    In a recent major address, Mitt Romney came as an angel of light to, ostensibly, clear things up and explain his Mormon religion. He did no such thing. Instead, Romney lied, revealed his historical ignorance re: our founding, he obfuscated, refused to be specific, engaged in vain theobabble, blew an uncertain trumpet, and uttered platitudes and generalities. Here’s some of what he said and my comments.

    Romney: Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty.

    Comment: What is fundamental to our greatness – or was – was our acknowledgement of and worship of the one true God, the God of the Bible – not “religious liberty” which today means all religions are equally valid and thus entitled to practice their religion freely. As God says: Blessed is the nation that has Him as its God (Psalm 33:12); except He build the house, they labor in vain who build it (Psalm 127).

    There is no “religious liberty” to not worship the One, True God and worship Him in the way He says we must worship Him!

    Examples of early views which made America great would be the Mayflower Compact, those coming here saying they did so “for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith.” Also John Winthrop’s “A Model Of Christian Charity” in which in which he spoke of our covenant with God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the necessity to obey Him if we are to succeed. In this sermon, Winthrop said that the “only way” for us to avoid shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, was to follow the counsel of Micah: To do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God. This, he said, would knit us together in our work as one man. This would make us that “City upon a hill,’ with all the eyes of all people on us.

    Romney: I’ll also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my presidency, if I were elected.

    Comment: A lie. He said nothing specific at all about what his faith is; no details at all re: Mormonism much less how specifically it would govern him in office.

    Romney: Quoted John Adams’ words: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”

    Comment: Adams meant Christians, all kinds of Christians. As John Jay wrote in Federalist Paper No. 2: “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.” Neither Adams nor most of our Founders (in the 1776 period) would have considered Mormons as moral and religious people!

    Romney: Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

    Comment: Important-sounding gibberish which – since the words “freedom” and “religion” are undefined – is meaningless. Reminds me of something called “amphigouri” — a verse composition which, while apparently coherent is actually without any meaning. An often cited example of “amphigouri” being English Victorian poet Algernon Swinburne’s self-parody of his own poetry, a poem titled “Nephelidia” the beginning of which is as follows: “From the depth of the dreamy decline of the dawn through a notable nimbus of nebulous noonshine, pallid and pink as the palm of the flag-flower that flickers with fear of the flies as they float.”

    Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?!

    Romney: I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

    Comment: Really?! Even if a person is a member of Anton LaVey’s “Church of Satan” which still exists, or Matthew Hale’s white supremacist anti-black “World Church of the Creator”?

    Romney: As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s “political religion” – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution.

    Comment: Lincoln was a murderous tyrant and to mention him in same breath with “the rule of law and the Constitution” is, well —- arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

    Romney: When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.

    Comment: Which God? Is the God of Mormonism the same God as the God of the Bible, the only true God there is? No.

    Romney: A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

    Comment: No such thing today.

    Romney: Refused to “disavow one or another of [the] precepts” of the Mormon religion saying: “That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”

    Comment: This is a very useful quotes because it means Romney believes in all Mormon teaching.

    Romney: “There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.

    Comment: What Mormon teaching about Christ is “may not …be the same as those of other faiths,” eh? This is truly one of the great understatements of this or any other century. Despite what you have heard or read, Mormon teaching is that Jesus is the spiritual brother of Lucifer. Go to the LDS Web site and look it up. But, of course, Romney says such evil teaching is not to be criticized but rather seen as a test of our tolerance. Well, on this one, I flunk the tolerance test.

    Romney: There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.

    Comment: Wrong! Ridiculous! The Constitution in no way restricts private individual voters from applying a religious test when they vote for civil government magistrates. Romney, obviously, knows no more about the Constitution than he does about Who Jesus is.

    Romney: I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God.

    Comment: Appallingly asinine! And I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows. And that if God didn’t make little green apples then it don’t rain in Indianapolis in the summertime and there’s no such thing as Dr. Suess and Disneyland and Mother Goose and blah, blah, blah.

    Romney: We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.

    Comment: Amen! I hate “religion”! But, what about God and State? God and government? Is it OK for God to “dictate” what must be the role of His-ordained civil government?

    Romney: The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion….

    Comment: No, only by the Federal Government.

    Romney: Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: Does he share these American values – the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

    Comment: Us from our religious heritage, sir? Mormonism is no part of our founding religious heritage! Not at all. Reminds me of old Lone Ranger joke. LR, surrounded by Indians, says to Tonto: “We are surrounded by Indians; this may be the end.” Tonto: “What do you mean we, white man?” And there’s that hideously meaningless “person of faith” phraseology! It’s like saying “people with noses” which tell us nothing of any substance about a person.

    And no!, the most important question to ask a person who seeks public office is not: Does he share “American values” (words without meaning today.) The most important question an office-seeker can be asked is the one our Lord asks in Matthew 16:13-16. When some of His disciples tell Him some people were saying He was John the Baptist, or Jeremias or one of the prophets, our Lord said to these disciples: “But whom say ye that I am?” That’s the most important question that can be asked of anyone! Who do they say Jesus is? And when, in the context of our discussion today, Mitt Romney’s answer is – as it must be since he believes Mormon teaching – that Jesus is the spiritual brother of Lucifer, that is a very wrong answer that disqualifies him from holding any God-ordained civil government office.

    Romney: Speaks again of the “the great moral inheritance we hold in common” which he says is “the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.”

    Comment: This reminds me of the hymn verse: “On Christ the solid rock I stand; all other ground is sinking sand”! There is no firm ground upon which to stand other than the Lord Jesus Christ who is NOT the spiritual brother of Lucifer. To attempt to stand on “different faiths” is, indeed, an attempt to stand firm on quicksand.

    Romney: We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we’re all part of the human family.

    Comment: Human family, yes; all humans made in God’s image, yes; but all humans who reject Christ, who are not Christians, are children of the Devil, are antiChrists. Thus, saith the Lord, in His Word. See John 8:44ff, for example.

    Romney: The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God.

    Comment: An inanely idiotic assertion; absurd on its face. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot all “humans.” So, what?! This made them “responsible” to —- what? Who?

    Romney: “our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths…”

    Comment: Not true. Problem with “values” is they consist only of what individuals “value.” Concept is totally humanistic. We must believe what God “values.”!!

    Romney: Our nation’s forebears…came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others.

    Comment: This is true only if you believe, erroneously, that our original founders (1620 era) believed that “freedom of religion” meant the right of anybody to make up and worship the God of their choice, or not worship at all. Otherwise, like many other things Romney said in his speech, this remark is false.

    Romney: Ann Hutchinson was exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

    Comment: Well, yes. She was a heretic, “a woman not fit for our society,” as a court ruled when she was told to take-a-hike. She was told, in effect, at first, shut up! She did not, so she was told to leave the colony.

    Romney: (Alluding, in part, to the exile of Hutchinson)Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths.

    Comment: So what?! If Bible-believing Christians found a colony, a country, and say, in effect, (Joshua 24:15), as for me and my house – my colony/country — we will serve the LORD, why should they “accommodate” themselves to those who say they will NOT serve the Lord?

    Romney: …For hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

    Comment: Crapola cubed! Because God does insist on a single strain of religion – HIM! Read the First Commandment! A mixed multitude consisting of a true faith and false religions is NOT a symphony; it’s a cacophony of discordant sounds which is, alas, America today.

  2. dotan

    Thank you for your well reasoned commentary, Professor Lofton. We would invite you to post a link or links to your own blog or writing elsewhere so that we can help drive whatever modest traffic that we can in your direction.

    g.

    P.S. I found your original essay with its original formatting:

    http://theamericanview.com/index.php?id=962&PHPSESSID=fffab0a574aba35887d84f84a83c7ebf

  1. 1 Dr. Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” video voter guide lies about Romney—claims Romney acknowledged that Mormonism is not a Christian faith—Fehrnstrom: “[Romney] has not made that acknowledgment” « who is will

    […] Romney’s own claims on this issue have been vexed and misleading. See: Romney retreats from “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind” b… […]




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: