Tag Archives: mormonism

Iowa Caucus: Media Feeding Frenzy Looking for the Un-Mormon Anti-Mitt

The votes are still being counted and with about 96% of the votes counted it will be a photo-finish between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum with Ron Paul just a bit behind in third place. The race between Romney and Santorum  It is so close that at least one network is predicting that it may not be able to call the race until the last vote is counted.

Reporters, pundits and pollsters are trying to sort out what this means but the reality is that three quarters of Republicans in Iowa don’t want Mitt Romney as their nominee.  Romney has the money, organizations and old line GOP support to run the table if he wasn’t viewed as the member of a religious cult by half the GOP and as a out of touch rich Massachusetts flip-flopper without John Kerry’s medals.

The fact is that if you add the non-Ron Paul “Conservative Christians” Santorum, Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann together they come in at at about 53% of the total vote. This is important because Romney has to win in the South and Midwest where the conservative Evangelical and Catholic vote has to be won to win. That demographic favors whoever is the Un-Mormon Anti-Mitt.  Many of Romney’s “supporters” close to 40% have reservations about him.

What I really believe will happen is that the vote will be so close that Romney’s campaign will lose momentum no-matter how well he does in New Hampshire where as of today polls give him a commanding lead. The real test will be South Carolina where if Romney sputters despite the support of Governor Nikki Haley the race will go on for a long time.  I think that Romney probably will still win the nomination but he will be damaged goods.  Some Tea Party leaders say that they would never support Romney, influential Evangelical pastors saying that Romney is “not a Christian” while others call support for Romney an endorsement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Mormons.

The scorched earth tactics of Romney’s Super PAC will not endear him to the supporters of some of his opponents. Newt Gingrich has called Romney a “liar” and as the campaign progresses the Romney campaign tactics will alienate more of the people that he needs to win in November. Romey’s PAC will turn its guns on Santorum and Gingrich will blast Romney in the next debate. It will get nasty.

The effect of Ron Paul and the Libertarian wing of the GOP cannot be underestimated, most Paul’s supporters would not support Romney.  Paul is well funded and will not go away and because many of the delegates won in the primaries are now awarded on a proportional basis if he hangs around he can collect enough of them to be the fly in Romney’s ointment at the GOP Convention.

I expect that Michelle Bachmann is not planning to end her campaign simply just yet but  her closing speech was as anti-Mitt as it was anti-Obama.  However her campaign is toast, even Sarah Palin has counted her out. Rick Perry is reassessing his campaign and going back to Texas.  But Newt Gingrich was not completely destroyed by Romney and will live to fight another day and will have an impact in the South where he will along with Santorum and Paul will bloody Romney significantly.  Gingrich’s closing speech tonight showed that he is going to go after Romney and pretty much leave Santorum alone.  Expect Bachmann and Perry to back Santorum if Gingrich falters.

Look to an unexpectedly long and interesting campaign for the GOP nomination. That is my take on Iowa.


Padre Steve+

Leave a comment

Filed under leadership, Political Commentary

The Pejorative use of the term Cult by people that should know Better: Reverend Robert Jeffress and Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney: According to some unfit for office because he is a Mormon

“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty.” Thomas Jefferson 

Cult: cult/kəlt/  Noun:  1) A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.  2) A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

A prominent pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention made a political endorsement the other day.  Dr Robert Jeffress pastor of the venerable and massive 10,000 member First Baptist Church of Dallas endorsed fellow Texan Rick Perry. In doing so he said “Rick Perry’s a Christian. He’s an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, Mitt Romney’s a good moral person, but he’s not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity.”

This is not new for Jeffress who back in 2008 made a similar comment at the Religion Newswriters Association annual meeting “I believe we should always support a Christian over a non-Christian…The value of electing a Christian goes beyond public policies. . . . Christians are uniquely favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and Muslims worship a false god. The eternal consequences outweigh political ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith that would lead people to a separation from God.

While the view that Mormonism is “outside mainstream Christianity” based on its doctrine of the Trinity and understanding of the Godhead is correct, it should never be labeled as a “cult.”  Mormons like a number of other splinter movements that have their roots in Christianity and even hold to some orthodox Christian theology would be more correctly labeled a heretical church.  The term heresy is a theological term and has been used by various churches to label others as such since the early days of the church. It describes people, groups and doctrines that are at variance with established religious beliefs and the adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.

Every religion has their heretics and since the genus of Mormonism was Joseph Smith’s dissent from Evangelical Christianity and his new revelations that he claimed were delivered to him by the Angel Moroni it is better to describe Mormonism as a heretical form of Christianity.  The use of the word cult by Jeffress and others is sloppy theology and even worse public policy in a nation where religious liberty is enshrined in the very first amendment to the Constitution.  The use of the word cult to define Mormonism is prejudicial because the same word is used to describe Satanists and splinter groups where members are based and controlled by a “cult” leader who demands their unconditional submission, devotion and obedience.  Although Mormonism has its own core “orthodoxy” there is a wide variance in the practice of faith in that church.

I actually expect better of Baptist leaders because the irony is that at one time Baptists were considered a heretical sect by Anglicans, Catholics and Lutherans.  In fact if the term cult had been used then as it is today that is what those groups would have labeled Baptists.  In earlyVirginiathe Anglican Church was the state church and because the landed gentry were Anglicans they were the government.  The Anglicans made their church law apply to the civil realm which of course had an impact on Baptists and others that settled in the colony. Virginia’s General Assembly protected the established church in law. It enforced laws that penalized dissenters: for example, requiring all officeholders to be Anglican. When theUnited Stateswas founded Anglicans inVirginiawere pressing to retain their religious control over the society.   In the Constitution there was no guarantee of the Freedom of Religion until the Reverend John Leland of the Virginia Baptist Convention pressed James Madison on the issue.  The result is that that the right of Free Exercise and the corresponding Non-Establishment clauses were written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights along with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.

My concern is that many Evangelical Christians are doing the same thing that the Virginia Anglicans did; they are trying to impose their beliefs as the law of the land.  The tragedy is that most Evangelicals hail from groups that have all been labeled as heretical or cults by other more powerful churches.  The descendants of persecuted religious minorities are now flexing political muscle backed by a militant understanding of a dominant Christian Church in a way that would have made their ancestors shake their heads.

We can all debate and decide who is and who is not a Christian based on the teachings of our church.  Christians simply do not agree with each other on many points of doctrine.  Some place an emphasis on one belief or practice that if not followed damns those that do not believe to hell.  Others are very open in their understanding of what constitutes the church.  Do all of us have values and even theological opinions that inform our life to include our political beliefs? Of course we do.  As Americans we live in the tension created by the fact that we live in a pluralistic society where all citizens have an equal right to practice their religion and equal rights as citizens to participate in the political process.  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made the comment that we should judge people by “the content of their character.”  I believe that such a belief is exactly what our founders meant when they enshrined the rights of the Free Exercise of Religion and the non-Establishment clause together with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly in the Constitution.

The fact is that there are many conservative Christians who in their fear of secularism and humanism have decided to create a “Christian” theocracy and are quite militant in how they will establish it and who is not included.  Those that embrace Dominion or “Seven Mountains theology believe that there is no middle ground, even among Christians that do not believe like them.  It appears that Reverend Jeffress seems to agree.

I think that Reverend Jeffress those like him and the politicians that enlist their support need to really ponder what Thomas Jefferson said before they make political decisions solely based on their theological and religious beliefs and that enlist or commandeer the government to accomplish goals that they have been unable to achieve by persuasion and witness. To me that is not the mark of people confident in their faith but people reacting out of fear.  Such seldom bodes well for any free society. Jefferson wrote:

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” 

His words are truer now than when he wrote them.  If a preacher or politician wants to call those that believe different from them to be a cult that is his or her right, but to blindly assert that those that believe different than us are unfit to govern because of their religious beliefs is ignorant and foolish and demonstrates a profound sense of insecurity on their part. Reverend Jeffress should know better, he should have taken at least one course in Baptist History in seminary….but wait, he didn’t go to a Southern Baptist seminary until he did his doctorate, I guess that he didn’t take the class.  By the way, I went to the seminary where he received his doctorate and although I am not and never have been a Southern Baptist I do know Baptist History and it stands against what Reverend Jeffress preaches in regard to politics.


Padre Steve+


Filed under film, History, laws and legislation, Political Commentary, Religion