"I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential... I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong."When religion is used like this, does it silence critics? Does it cheapen religion? If you're skeptical and think he's parading religion, being sanctimonious, do you hold your tongue, because you worry that you'll look bad or offend some people if you question the sincerity of a profession of religion? Religion is a strong force, and it can motivate political decisions, but if your political argument is a religious argument, what can be said? Does the politician successfully put himself on the high ground, deserving admiration and fending off debate?
Now, Romney is different from a politician who says his religion gives him the answer to a particular question. He's only using religion to emphasize that he takes the oath seriously. Presumably, he means that for him, violating this oath would wreck his afterlife, so he needs to make this decision exceedingly carefully and without any element of hoping for worldly benefits. He then goes on to analyze the law and the facts and the arguments and to present his decision as based on what the oath said, and it's not as if the oath required him to vote the way God dictates.
[M]y promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.That last question is very strange! It implies that a highly principled atheist would not follow the process demanded in the oath but would necessarily yield to the pressure of partisan politics. Only religion is enough to keep people on an honest, dutiful path?
I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?
That's a rather offensive thing to say about nonbelievers, yet you can see why he said it. He said it to vouch for his own profession of profound religiosity: Only a profoundly religious person would do X, I am doing X, therefore, I am profoundly religious.
Can we question the sincerity? Or must we stand back in awe of the great man? God help us if the answer depends entirely on whether you wanted to see Donald Trump continue as President or be out on his ass.
Posts
206 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206Call it what it is: a cop-out, a fence straddle, a typical amoral pandering politician move. Split the difference - guilty on one charge, not guilty on the other - in expectation of gratitude from both parties. Not.
Have known many LDS folks. Generally very focused, productive people; usually on a goal that brings value to society; and without making a public point of their faith.
To answer the question "When a politician says....do we shrink from the question of sincerity?" No shrinking nor questioning needed. The proclamation itself announces the mendacity of the proclaimer.
The sincerity of a such a statement can of course be questioned; I just don’t see a lot of reason here, with this person in this circumstance, to engage in that exercise (contrast Romney to Trump in this regard). More importantly, I don’t think Mitt’s comment should be interpreted as an insult to non-believers. It needs to be interpreted against the background of his prior statement that his vote was influenced by how seriously, as a devoutly religious person, he took his oath. His later statement is simply arguing that, given the lack of other rewards for voting as he did, his stated motivation is clearly his true one. None of that reasoning excludes the possibility of other people with other backgrounds having been strongly motivated by other admirable and/or convincing, but non-religious, considerations. In other words, the “Only a profoundly religious person would do X” part of the syllogism isn’t something he actually said.
It's a rather easy test --
If someone self-promotes how religious they are, if they apply the word "devout" to themselves, that's a pretty clear indication that they are not, not really.
The truly devoted are too humble to act that way.
“The temple (and what it means to us) is probably something that is difficult for those outside the church to understand, and I can see why it would lead to some misunderstandings and, yes, some negative perceptions.”
That this isn’t well understood by us gentiles shouldn’t be a surprise, given how secret you (LDS) keep it. (Not a complaint, but an observation).
“Thank you to most here for keeping this discussion above the gutter.”
Hope I wasn’t one of though you thought went into the gutter. If, so, I apologize. It wasn’t my intent.
I do find your willingness to engage in education, if not debate about your LDS faith interesting. I think that it shows an increasing assurance and assertiveness on the part of your faithful and its relationship with other faiths. We (my partner and I) having spent a decent amount of time living around and working with Mormons, have almost a love/hate relationship with them. On the one hand, some of the most ethical attorneys I have practiced law with are LDS. For some of them, it is black and white, with no room for fudging. Then, you will run into a Harry Reid or Mitt Romney. Most of the time, the LDS we have known seem normal to us. But then something pops up and we realize that there are a lot of hidden differences.
One of the things that I don’t appreciate is the arrogance that many Mormons seem to have that they are saved, and we are not. That is likely not the real situation, but it looks that way to outsiders living around Mormons. For me, I don’t see this with the men, that they think that they are better than we are, as I do with the women. For one thing that sort of arrogance seems similar to the self righteousness that Jesus seemed to always be preaching against.
“One of the things that I don’t appreciate is the arrogance that many Mormons seem to have that they are saved, and we are not. That is likely not the real situation, but it looks that way to outsiders living around Mormons. For me, I don’t see this with the men, that they think that they are better than we are, as I do with the women. For one thing that sort of arrogance seems similar to the self righteousness that Jesus seemed to always be preaching against.”
My partner often falsely claims that I am often undiplomatic. And this may be one of those occasions. Rereading my post, I can see how it may come across as an attack against the LDS religion. It was not intended that way. It was supposed to be merely an observation that while I like most of the Mormon men I have known (even one of Harry Reid’s boys, whom I practiced law with in NW NV), I have felt condescension from many of the Mormon women. It is quite possible that I misread the situation. Part of the problem may be that I have personally known a lot more Mormon men, than women, mostly because I worked with them.
I should add that I really didn’t understand that LDS members don’t really appreciate being called “Mormon”, and that term came from outsiders. You most likely understand that the terms that you use to identify yourselves are often inappropriate when used by outsiders. I am not your spiritual brother, nor do I consider you saints. Indeed, I mostly don’t believe in saints, though people like Mother Teressa come close. Moreover, I hesitate calling RC clergy “Father”, and most likely would never address higher RC clergy as “Eminence”, or “Holiness”, though I have no problem with Bishop, Cardinal, and Pope because those are accurate job titles. I am more comfortable using LDS as a descriptor of the religion, than as a personal descriptor (which I tend to use Mormon for), because doing so would mean, in my mind, that Mormons are more likely to be saints than anyone else. The Mormons here may believe that they are. I don’t know. But my Calvinism denies that, as it does that the Pope can create saints either. But, for future reference, if any members of the LDS church are still reading this, and you have terminology for yourselves, that you prefer to “Mormon” that would be more appropriate for non adherents, please let me know.
Also, note that if we met, in person, and spent a decent amount of time together, the discussion would inevitably turn to religion, and I would ask the same sorts of questions. I am, too often, too curious for my own good. Kind of reminds me of the cat that periodically commits depredations upon my typing hand as I sit in the dark typing this. I am up, so he is too. And likes cats, I sometimes go too far. We figure that in his 18 months of life, he has already gone through 3 of his 9 lives, mostly due to his unhealthy curiosity. So, please take my comments in the way they were intended, and not how they may come across. The only posters here that I may harbor any animosity towards are some of our leftist posters of prepackaged propaganda.
“If someone self-promotes how religious they are, if they apply the word "devout" to themselves, that's a pretty clear indication that they are not, not really.”
“The truly devoted are too humble to act that way.”
Agree 100%.
Post a Comment