Sharpton on Romney and the Mormon faith
By Alexham Posted in 2008 — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
During a debate with Christopher Hitchens, Rev. Al Sharpton made the following remark:
"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."
I have to say, I was taken aback by this statement. It's not that I was suprised by Sharpton saying something controversial; he's been doing that for years. No, what struck me about the remark is that it appears to convey a streak of orthodoxy on Sharpton's part. And that's a side of Sharpton I've never seen before.
In any event, I am curious to know what my fellow Redstaters think about Sharpton's remark.
Personally, I don't doubt for a moment that Romney believes in God. Now, he apparently does not believe in the Triune God, as Mormons explicitly reject the Trinity. As such, Romney's understanding of God is fundamentally different from mine and most other mainline Christians (be they Catholic or Protestant).
That having been said, my problems with Romney have to do with his Kerryesque flip-flopping on "Culture of Life" issues, not with his personal faith; and I strongly suspect that many other Redstaters feel the same way.
Update: Rod Dreher weighs in here.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Off to South Carolina — Comments (6) »
Sharpton on Romney and the Mormon faith 54 Comments (0 topical, 54 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Based on the way Redstaters constantly bring up Romney's Mormonism, even on postings regarding unrelated topics (ie non-religious), I'd think his Mormonism DOES bother quite a few people here. It seems as if every Romney-hating post has the same qualifier: "its not because he's Mormon, but...".
I am not a Romney supporter (anymore), but I wanted to share my observation.
Your comment is more than a tad misleading. It seems to me that Mormonism is brought up primarily by Romney's supporters and for folks who have a problem with LDS, the problem is theological not political. At first, when the topic came up, it would quickly turn into a threadjack. Most folks have gotten to the point where we just don't bother to comment. To be clear, I have huge problems with LDS - all theological. And I will not discuss them at RS because none of my theological issues with Romney bear on his qualification (or lack thereof) to be POTUS.
I'm not a Romney supporter, I don't see any way - yet - I could vote for him in the primary for reasons I'll probably outline in a diary about all the candidates today. I would vote for him in the general.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I, too, have problems with LDS. Many are theological. Many more are deeply personal and painful. However, I agree that my opinion of LDS doesn't (and shouldn't) have anything to do with Romney's presidential qualifications.
I would never pull the lever for Romney in the primary, but I'm not going to argue that anyone else should feel the same way because my reasons are not based on the policies or the character of the man.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
Sharpton could've called Romney a "hairspayed ho," and gotten in much less trouble.
Is that you have a lefty moron attacking a potential Repulican nominees religion and an editor here uses this as a chance to join in and knock Romney some more. It would have shown some class if one of the editor's would have said this is wrong and Sharpton should be held accountable.
To be sure, I mentioned that Romney has flip-flopped on life issues, but my point was that he should be judged on the merits of his candidacy, not the tenants of his faith.
I would think as one of his supporters that is something on which we would agree.
As for calling Sharpton out, it seems to me that his own words do that just fine. What else would you have me say, other than what I said in the post?
through your absence of faith, through your lack of effusive and uncritical praise, through your failure to extoll his management experience and how he built an Republican electoral juggernaut in Massachusetts. In all those things you disrespected the giant in the field of 2008 candidates.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
just doing anything I can to move the inevitability of Mitt Romney forward
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
when he hits 6% the Big Mo will really be going his way
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Maybe Sharpton should've put on his magic underwear before the debate. That might've helped him.
Suggesting that Romney, or Mormons generally, don't believe in God is no more bigoted than saying Buddhists or atheists don't believe in God. None of those believe in the same God that Christians worship. Seems like Romney and his supporters are wound too tight.
You've managed to hang out here for an hour. All you've done in that hour is show us that you are internet equivalent of toxic waste.
Go away. If we need some rank stupidity in a thread, we'll contact you.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
okay, you both may be adding a lot of heat to the argument but not much light
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Just to clear things up, LDS DO believe in God and believe in Christ. If you want to go to your local Christian bookstore and read all the anti-Mormon crap in there, go ahead. But don't forget in those bookstores are books about how evil Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists and myriad other religions are. If you wanted to know about Christ would you ask one of his disciples or one of the people that crucified Him? The answer seems clear to me. If people have problems with Mormonism, fine, that is their right. I'm sure Mormons have problems with those idiots on TBN with their 5 thousand dollar suits and bling bling who get caught in hotels with hookers or in limos playing out there homosexual fantasies. Mormonism is not the issue with Mitt Romney. The issue is, is he competent to run the country? Can he get the dummycrats to work with him? Will the rest of the world's leaders work with him? Can he put more money in my pocket by keeping taxes low? These are the things I care about, not how he believes in God. This country was founded on religious freedom was it not?
True, I've only just now registered. It might surprise you, but there are quite a few people who have been reading Redstate for a long, long time, but never cared to post anything. That changed today, when I saw some very partisan misinformation about Mormonism and Christianity.
I'm very sorry if not being a Christian is troublesome to you, but don't shoot the messenger.
Romney appears to be a very nice gentleman, but it is quite silly for a Mormon -- or any other non-Christian, for that matter -- to get worked up when & if a Christian notes the *fact* that the Mormon and the Christian don't believe in the same God.
Deep breath... in... out. You'll be ok.
my post above was directed at you, too. Knock the crap off.
Don't ever call someone "sissy" again.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
As I've said a zillion times, I don't give a rip about Romney's affiliation with LDS. The theology has no place here unless it's relevant to the politics. And it's not.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
You did call him Kerryesque. You did outline why Romney's faith is not part of the mainstream- nothing I disagree with, but put in context it is a subtle negative.
I did read your comment that Sharpton surprised you with his orthodoxy (which I am assuming would be positive) and you did correct him.
You could have said that Sharpton was clearly stating false facts about Romney's religion as to score political points0- which he was. You may not agree with the Religion but somehow if someone had said this about Fred Thompson there would have been hell to pay at Redstate. Oh wait there was, that was when a certain evangelical leader said Thompson believed wasn't a Christian or whatever he said.
Instead with Romney we get a pretty soft response saying Sharpton's comments speak on their own.
You pretend as though there are not significant theological arguments about those facts. I'm not rehashing them here, but Sharpton's position has been an open theological debate for over a hundred years and it is not by any means settled.
With respect to Thompson, the subject is both different and the same. The comments attributed to Dobson had to do with his comment that Thompson was not outspoken about his faith and thus wasn't among the faithful. That's never been said about Romney. The part that's the same, is that neither discussion has any place at Red State.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
There is no theological debate if mormons actually believe in God.
People debate whether it's the same God, many Gods, my God, your God, but there is no debate over a god. I am just as much schooled in this as you.
1. I didn't say Mormons didn't believe in a god.
2. "Much schooled" is a pretty meaningless theological concept.
3. There is a big - as in BIG - difference in the theology of LDS and "traditional Christian" theology. As it happens, there is also a big difference between "traditional" Christian theology and what passes for "modern" (or post-modern) "Christian" theology - see Bishop Spong.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
1. I was referring to the false fact of Mormons not believing in God. Then you said there was significant arguments around this. If you meant something else than it wasn't very clear. I do agree Mormons (I am one myself) are not mainstream Christians. No problem with that.
2. OK.
3. Thank you.
Sponge is a noted liberal theolgian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong
I'm not going to start referring Mormans and Protestants to Saint Thomas Aquinas or the writings or Cardinal Ratzinger. That's what is dangerous about this debate. It opens up a whole can of worms. We can bring Catholics, Jews and other denominations into this debate. This is about the 100th thread that demonstrates that some form of bigotry against Romney exists. Sometimes it is overt. Sometimes it is subtle. But for people and to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend it doesn't exist undermines their credibility. This type of garbage is going to alienate a whole lot more people than Mormans, who just happen to be a loyal republican voting block. I wish this crap would stop.
I have repeatedly said I will not get into that debate here. My only point for picking on Spong is to point out that the "Christian/LDS" debate isn't the only theological argument in town.
The argument about "subtle bigotry" is BS. It's an argument that can be made about EVERY candidate:
1. Hillary - woman.
2. Obama - black. Name.
3. Huckabee - Southern Baptist.
4. Romney - hair. (a much bigger issue for me than his being LDS>)
5. Thompson (T) - fat.
6. Thompson (F) - Southern.
7. Paul - stupid.
8. Edwards - really stupid.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I think The Reverend Al Sharpton has made a career and quite a nice life for himself out of saying things that are either directly inflammatory or can be taken in a lot of different ways, depending on the proclivities of the listener and the precise point at which the audience decides to draw the Lines of Context.
Which is obviously why he had to lobby so hard to have Don Imus fired over participating (actually following up on) an obvious joke that he and his fellow scalp-takers decided to turn into a Federal case.
Only Al Sharpton is allowed to make intentionally ambiguous and inflammatory statements these days, because he's a minority. But I'll make him a deal: if he goes back to Leslie Moonves and argues that Imus should be forgiven, rehired, and compensated for the hit that he has taken to his career and his life, and if Sharpton makes a public apology for his role in the Tawana Brawley "white gang rape" hoax, and he agrees to throw a cream pie in Ted Kennedy's face, I'll forgive him and let it slide according to his own explanation for what he said.
That's only fair.
I'm not a fan of Mormonism or Scientology or such things. I don't believe in Thetans or that we get to be god of our own planet after we die. But this is not why I dislike Romney. To me, he just comes across as a well rehersed man who wants power, but who does not have strong convictions or a strong ideological base. He's changed his mind on social conserative issues, seemingly to pander to more voters. He's a business man, but he hasn't acted like an economic conservative in Massachusetts.
The latter is what bothers me the most, because I'm looking for someone as close to a Barry Goldwater as I can find, and he's not it. On things like health care, the OLPC boondoggle from MIT, and software formats, he has stood for government intevention instead of letting the market work freely.
So at the next D primary debate, will the moderator ask each candidate "Sharpton said... blah blah... after this show of bigotry, would you accept an endorsement from Sharpton?"
My guess is they would soft ball it: "Sharpton said... blah blah... do you agree?
That's the subtle bias of media that really has an effect. It isn't conscious, but it is bias.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
So it looks like conservatives are narrow minded people with a religious litmus test. Of course it would be nice if Sharpton were taken off the air for insinuating that mormons don't believe in god but I won't hold my breath.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Sharpton's most important asset, aside from the color of his skin, is his mouth. He keeps people talking about ... Al Sharpton.
My only question is: how many people need to be sacrificed on his altar so that he can keep himself in the news?
I'd be remiss if I didn't include one of my all-time-favorite Ted Kennedy lines, which he belched out during a press conference a couple of years ago on the Iraq war, which Kennedy started long and rambling, windy and self-congratulatory introduction, complete with the flourishes (holding up the New York Times for the cameras with his shaking hands) and building to this classic:
"And I'm Proud To Share This Stage With Al Sharpton."
The two of them make a wonderful tag-team on stage, and Kennedy was more prescient than he realized at the time. Now that Deval Patrick is the governor of Massachusetts, can it be very long before Sharpton relocates to Boston so that he can run for Senate when Kennedy retires?
I am about as conservative as they come and Al Sharpton is an idiot.
That being said, in this case, what is wrong with what he said? Obviously he was talking about the one true God (i.e., the Christian God). Romney is a Mormon and so, by definition, does not believe in God. Mormonism is NOT a Christian denomination, it is a cult that denies the basic tenets of the faith.
I hate defending Sharpton, but his words, in this case, were right on the mark.
If Sharpton was at a conference on theology and Romney was running for Bishop his comments - and yours - would be worth discussing.
Romney's not running for Bishop, or Pope, or to be my pastor. He's running for President. His faith, and your interpretation of it, has no place in the discussion. If you want to discuss his position(s) on abortion or gun control or his health insurance program in MA, or his seeming willingness to accommodate liberal programs, or his record of vetoing wacko bills, or his economic turnaround of MA without raising taxes or his work on the Olympics, have at it.
If you want to discuss the Trinity, whether Jesus showed up in the US, golden tablets or the LDS teaching on god, start your own blog, don't dirty up Red State.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I can almost guarantee that if a Shiite were running for US President, it would be an issue that you would deem worth discussing ... why is this different?
For instance, MartinAKnight, a front pager here, is Muslim. I have no clue if he is Shia, Sunni or some other variety I'm unfamiliar with. What I can say, is that if he were running for POTUS, him showing up at Friday prayers would not be an issue for me.
If the current president of CAIR were a candidate, I would be very interested in his positions on a number of issues, none of them having to do with the supremacy of Christ or Mohammad.
In some ways, a person's faith influences their world view. LDS, for all the theological issues I have with them (and they are many and deep), does not seem to bend an individual's world view away from being pro-American or holding conservative political values (Harry Reid is obviously the exception that proves the rule). Given that, I don't have an issue - a religious issue - voting for a Mormon for POTUS. I have political issues with Romney, none are as significant as my political issues with McCain.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
"Romney's not running for Bishop, or Pope, or to be my pastor. He's running for President. His faith, and your interpretation of it, has no place in the discussion."
At least it shouldn't have any place in the discussion. The problem, of course, is that faith dominates the discussion of presidential politics. In 2004, the commander in chief of the GWOT won a debate with Kerry because of an answer to a question about his religion.
Any candidate who doesn't have a good answer to "How will your faith influence your decisions in the White House?" is a sure loser.
We're missing Sharpton's Official Interpretation here: the interview was being conducted by Christopher Hitchens, an avowed atheist. Sharpton claims his "those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways" was a reference to Hitchens, not Romney.
Either way, it's an insult to Romney or a condescending and backhanded slap at Hitchens' atheism, and Hitchens should insulted in the latter case, because he's basically saying to Hitchens: "Let the believers handle this, Hitch. You go back to noodling about George Orwell and criticizing Michael Moore."
It's amazing to me that Al Sharpton has managed to:
1) Offend Mitt Romney
2) Condescend to Christopher Hitchens and
3) Keep himself in the media spotlight
All at the same time. The man is a *genius*.
Ya know, last night on "Hannity and Colmes", Ann Coulter was asked about Romney's potential "flip-flop". She made a good comment that she "didn't care if he was pandering, just as long as he's pandering" to her, which to a point, I agree with. He knows that if he comes out in the primary campaign and says he's pro-life, yet implements pro-choice policies during the general election campaign (should he get the nomination) or during his Presidency (should he get elected), he'll be abandoned by his base, which he needs to get elected. He has to live up to those promises. So I'm more accepting of Romney's "flip-flop" than I am Giuliani giving money to Planned Parenthood.
DUNCAN HUNTER IN '08
It is one that I've made in the past as well. And it is for that reason (i.e., he will need prolifers on board to get reelected), and that reason alone, that I will still consider voting for Romney.
I mean, why is Romney's conversion so in doubt? Is it really that hard to believe that a man sees the brutality that abortion is, and changes his mind? His explanation seems sincere, so I would support him if he gets the nomination (though Hunter's still my candidate).
DUNCAN HUNTER IN '08
Romney says most all the right things, but there is something I can't quite put my finger on that I don't trust or like. Unfair, perhaps, but that's how I honestly feel.
Except in my case, I'm just absolutely, totally consumed with jealousy that he has his hair line and I have (or don't have) mine.
OTOH, I would trade my wife for his. Or anybody else's.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I am a legal conservative, a social conservative, and a Mormon, and I want to thank you for your comments above that Mitt Romney's candidacy for POTUS should be evaluated on his values, his policy positions, and his record—not on his theological beliefs. However, I am puzzled by your fixation with the abortion flip-flop charge against Romney yet utter silence regarding Fred Thompson’s past statements regarding abortion. See
http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/thompsons-1994-issue-positions...
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6230
In a candidate questionnaire, Mr. Thompson agreed with the statement that abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy. He also said that Congress should leave legislation on abortion to the states, which would presumably mean that he opposes the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (except he voted for it!) and any other federal legislation limiting abortion. So much for consistency!
Look, to be clear, I am very interested in Mr. Thompson’s potential candidacy. Personally, I will support the Republican Party candidate who I believe will appoint the best judges (a.k.a. originalists) and who is viable in the general election. Right now, my choice looks like it’s between Romney and Fred Thompson. (I know, by the way, that it's not John McCain--he will appoint Oconnors, Kennedys, and Stevens and is responsible for Miguel Estrada not being on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals right now. It's also not Guiliani--his statement that publicly financed abortions are constitutionally required and his assertion that strict constructionists could go either way on Roe v. Wade are ridiculous. It's so disappointing too, because Guiliani could have given the Nation such a valuable civics: it's possible to be pro-choice yet anti-Roe.)
Please explain your apparent double-standard between Romney and Thompson. It would seem irrational, unless you—like some of the other commenters above—are drawing a distinction between Mr. Romney and Mr. Thompson on the grounds of Romney’s mormonism. That is a conclusion I am reticent to make. Please help.
Oops. That should be "speaking barely for me..."
I personally think the "abortion debate" over both Romney and Fred is a tempest in a teapot. It does appear that Mitt may have modified his position a couple of times while Fred may have changed his once. I'm less excited about Romney's "consistency" on the issue than Fred's, but it's not a big deal to me at this point, given what I know about the two men and where they are today. For me, this isn't a double standard, I don't much care about the history of either of them on this. I'm pretty OK with where both are now.
My biggest issue with Mitt is that he is a one term governor of MA, spent a big chunk of his last couple of years running for President and aside from apparently balancing the MA budget without raising taxes (no small accomplishment) his term seems to me to be one of enacting most of what the liberal legislature's social agenda was. He just did it cheaper than they would have.
I'm looking for a candidate who will go to war with the Democratic Party. I want a nasty, partisan guy who is willing to swear at the bastards and question their patriotism. I wouldn't mind if he arrested a few of them. (Dollar Bill, Harry & Di for starters) I want someone who will go over the heads of the Congress and make his case to the people. And then stick his thumb in the eye of the Congress.
I don't see Mitt being that guy.
I do think Rudy would do that. He did in NYC. Fred might do that. McCain wouldn't do that if his life depended on it, nor would Brownback or TThompson or Huckabee.
So, right now, my preferences - subject to change on the least little whim - are:
1. Franz, Price of Dogness. Cuter and smarter than any of them. Has much better hair than Mitt. Would kill and eat Democrats for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And snacks.
2. Since Franz may run afoul of the age thing for Presidential Candidates - the constitution doesn't specifically say "people years not dog years" I'll probably end up with a different candidate.
3. Tier one and a half - Rudy and Fred. No particular order.
4. Tier two - Mitt.
3. Tier three - Hunter, Brownback and everybody else but McCain and Paul.
4. Tier four - Ron Paul.
5. Tier five - John McCain. Who I would not vote for for any reason, at any time, for any office.
Hope that clarifies it.
And, my #1 candidate is:
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
First off, Al Sharpton is an imbecile of the highest order and one of the most racist people in America. He gets to have it both ways. He gets to spew his vitriol whenever he wants and criticize and ruin whomever he wants. This Mormon issue is a non-debate, non-issue. Does America really have a problem with somebody that has a strong family, good values and lives a clean life? It is not like Mitt will be consulting Gordon B Hinckley on a daily basis for advice on how to run the country. The church has long practiced a "vote your conscience" political message, that is as far as it goes. It does not endorse any candidate. So America, either you want somebody who is honest and with a track record of success in business who has scruples or you don't. If you don't, then I fear the direction the country is headed. Somebody please shave Sharpton's head and gag him. I have heard enough out of that talking chimp.
I'm no fan of Al, but that's an oopsie.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
the fact that Sharpton said what he said, the that someone thought that the best way to debate religion was to bring in Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton?! What, was Michael Newdow at a family function?
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason