CNN did not challenge Southern Baptist Convention's Land with website's listing of Mormonism as cult
SUMMARY: Discussing Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, CNN's Colleen McEdwards said
to the Southern Baptist Convention's (SBC) Richard Land, "I mean, let's face it,
some people go as far as saying Mormonism is a cult." At no point during the
interview, however, did Land acknowledge or McEdwards point out that the SBC
lists the Mormon church as a "Major Cults/Sect[] in North America" or that an
SBC group uses Mormonism as an example in highlighting four of the six
characteristics it uses to answer the question, "What is a Cult or Sect?"
While reporting on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, during the December 6 edition of CNN's Your World Today, host Colleen McEdwards asked Richard Land -- who she said "is with the Southern Baptist Convention [SBC]" -- "Did he [Romney] explain enough about the Mormon faith, though, to satisfy those evangelical voters, particularly in the state of Iowa, all of these upcoming primaries and caucuses, who do feel nervous about the religion?" McEdwards added, "I mean, let's face it, some people go as far as saying Mormonism is a cult." Land -- president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission -- responded, "I'm one of those evangelicals who do not believe that Mormonism is an orthodox with a small 'o,' Trinitarian with a capital 'T' faith. In the lead-in you talked about what they believe about God the father and God the son and that's clearly not orthodox. But they certainly deserve equal standing under the law." At no point, however, did Land acknowledge or McEdwards point out that the North American Missions Board -- the SBC's domestic missions agency -- includes "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [LDS]," on its list of "Major Cults/Sects in North America" or that the Missions Board uses LDS as an example in highlighting four of the six characteristics it uses to answer the question, "What is a Cult or Sect?"
From the December 6 edition of CNN's Your World:
McEDWARDS: We want to bring in a religious leader who says that Romney's speech was important for his campaign, but even more important for America. Richard Land is with the Southern Baptist Convention -- that's the largest Protestant denomination in the United States -- and he's written a book called The Divided States of America [Thomas Nelson, April 2007]. Richard, it's great to have you here.
Now, I understand that you actually argued for Romney to go ahead and do this and that you were looking for a real Kennedy-esque kind of speech, a kind of moment where he really laid it out there. Did you get what you were you looking for here?
LAND: Yes, I think we did. I met with the governor at his invitation, October 2006. About a dozen evangelical leaders met with him at his home and he said, "OK, what do I need to hear?" And I said, "Well Governor, I think that your Mormon faith is not an absolute deal-breaker with evangelicals, but you've got to close the deal. Only Kennedy could convince enough Protestants to vote for a Catholic, and only you can convince evangelicals to vote for a Mormon." And so I encouraged him to give this kind of a speech. I even gave him a copy of the Kennedy speech and I said, "You know, in your own words, you need to do this kind of a speech." And so, I'm glad that he's done it. I do think it's more important for the country, even than it is for Governor Romney, to be reminded in this kind of a high-profile speech, about our rich heritage, our religious freedom, and religious pluralism and diversity. And I thought he did a magnificent job.
McEDWARDS: Did he explain enough about the Mormon faith, though, to satisfy those evangelical voters, particularly in the state of Iowa, all of these upcoming primaries and caucuses, who do feel nervous about the religion? I mean, let's face it, some people go as far as saying Mormonism is a cult, certainly that it doesn't deserve equal standing with Christian faiths.
LAND: Well, first of all, I think that he would have made a mistake had he talked about Mormonism. Kennedy spent not one sentence talking about Catholicism, or seeking to describe it or defend it. That's not appropriate, in my opinion, in a presidential campaign. He defended the right of a Mormon to run for president. And, look, I'm one of those evangelicals who do not believe that Mormonism is an orthodox with a small "o," Trinitarian with a capital "T" faith. In the lead-in you talked about what they believe about God the father and God the son and that's clearly not orthodox. But they certainly deserve equal standing under the law. And the fact that a person is a Mormon should not disqualify them from running for public office. We have a constitutional prohibition against a religious test for office and after all, we're voting for a commander in chief, not a pastor in chief.
McEDWARDS: Is the elephant out of the room though, now, Richard, do you think for evangelicals? Or are there still other issues here? I mean, his record as a governor, for example, has been called into question. Some conservatives think he's too liberal. His flip-flop on abortion: He once said it should be legal and accessible in the United States, and then said no, he changed his mind about that. Is there too much to overcome here?
LAND: Well, it depends on the evangelical. It depends on the socially conservative Catholic whether it's too much to overcome. I do think those questions about his record are legitimate questions that deserve to be in a political campaign. I don't think that his individual doctrinal and theological beliefs deserve to be in a campaign. And I think to the extent that he needed to address them, he addressed them. He said, I will not use the presidency to promote my particular faith. I'll deal with everyone equally. And the Mormon church's authority over me ends with church affairs. It doesn't have anything to do with my performance of my office, if I'm the president. And it would not interfere with my oath of office. Those are the two biggest concerns that I've heard from evangelicals, and he straightforwardly addressed them today, as President Kennedy did in 1960 when he said that he would be guided by his conscience and no external threat would cause him to do otherwise.
McEDWARDS: Richard Land, we have to leave it there. Thank you so much, some early reaction there from you. We really appreciate it, Richard.
LAND: Thank you.
in spite of what land says, kennedy did talk about catholicism. he said he would make decisions guided by what is good for the country, and not what the vatican thinks. and he described romney as "dealing with everyone equally". no, he will deal with you if you are christian. everyone else, don't let the door hit you in the ass.
here are excerpts from kennedy's speech. he clearly did refer to catholicism and said no one should tell you how to vote based on religion. it's a total fabrication to compare kennedy to romney on this issue.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7643924
Thanks for the link and you're right, Mitt is nowhere near the man JFK was.
Funny thing about this exchange between McEdwards and Land is that the two of them mentioned Mormonism more than Mitt did in his "grounbreaking" speech. Mitt said the word Mormon, I think once maybe two times.
Mitt's a pandering coward. He's afraid of being rejected by the wingnut base for his Mormon faith. He should be too. They don't want him, he knows it, so he pretended to be one of them.
Sellout.
Roundhouse,
I think Bensten beat you to it with his Quayle putdown, "I knew Kennedy, and you're no Kennedy". :-)
Yep. And he had the good graces to not call Quayle a coward. But I'm not running for office, so I need no such degree of civility.
Here are links to the entire speeches of Romney in 2007 and Kennedy in 1960.
[link to www.mittromney.com]
[link to www.jfklibrary.org]
One panders to the intolerant and one proclaims that the separation of church and state must be ABSOLUTE.
Not to argue about angels on pins, but Land is right. Nowhere in the speech does Kennedy mention any of the tenets of the Catholic faith. He assumes that his listeners have a certain familiarity with Church structure, and he answers some arguments like, "divided loyalties," but nowhere does he discuss any duties or beliefs required of Catholics by the Church.
That said, I agree with the consensus here that the speech showed that Romney is no Jack Kennedy. One speech was pandering and schmaltzy, the other principled and straight-forward. How could it be otherwise? One candidate is a beautifully packaged Ken-doll, the other was a (flawed) hero.
land said: "kennedy spent not one sentence talking about catholicism". that's untrue. when kennedy said he would not be influenced by the pope, he was clearly talking about his catholicism.
It is important to remember also that JFK went to a gathering of Southern Baptist Ministers the lion's den, so to speak.
That showed cajones!
Where did Romney give his speech?
Isn't it funny...Romney's pandering-to-the-Troglodytes speech is getting ten times more media coverage than the NIE which proves Bush and Cheney are liars. Why am I not surprised?
The Media Bobbleheads seem to be tripping over each other in their efforts to portray Romney's theofascist screed as "brilliant". "Liberal Media", anyone?
I'd hardly call this CNN reporter a "bobblehead" - she introduces the "Mormon as a cult" notion, as well as saying some have characterized Romney's abortion position as a flip-flop.
she "introduces" it so he can knock it down. it is certainly relevant that his own group describes it as a cult.
She introduce it so he can knock it down? She introduces it because of its relevancy to the discussion - whether he knocks it down, or endorses it, isn't media misinformation.
the fact that his group describes mormonism as a cult is certainly relevant. something she should have pointed out or should have known if she did not. omission can be misinformation. such is the case here.
She probably did not mention the references to cults on the SBC website because she didn't know about them. CNN reporters, from Blitzer on down, have become notoriously lazy over the last decade. They rarely, if ever, do the basic, fundamental research that a true JOURNALIST would have done.
I don't know if you answered me the other day, Tommy, but what do you have against cults?
Nothing, I belong to several.
Hehehe good answer Tommy ;-)
How sad that religion is still being brought up in this day & age and that some take it into consideration before supporting a Presidential candidate.
Especially as some of our so-called Christian Presidents have not adhered to the morals/values Christianity teaches.
Religion should not be a factor, I mean I don't feel all warm & fuzzy just because the President goes to church...
I've never considered Mormonism a "cult". Nor do I put any religion in that category. The Religious Right's intolerance is as scary as that of radical Islam.
J, Great points and well said.
Good answer, Tommy. I was only trying to get some insight into why many religious people consider the word "cult" a smear, while referring to others who have different beliefs as cults.
Apparently you don't have an answer.
You will have to ask those religious people, and selected atheists, who have that belief - because you're right, I do not, so I am not the one to ask.
"I'd hardly call this CNN reporter a "bobblehead" - she introduces the "Mormon as a cult" notion..." (Tommy)
Maybe I misunderstood you, Tommy. It looked like you were saying the reporter isn't a Mitt cheerleader because she used the word "cult".I took that to mean you considered the word derogatory.I'm sure there's some other perfectly rational explanation. ;0)
I have no clue what you're driving at??
Let me make it clear, I do consider the term "cult"a negative descriptor, where did you get the idea that I didn't? I also don't use the term to describe viable religious entities, which is what you said some did in your earlier post, therefore the contradiction which does not pertain to me.
Aaaaand, I guess this brings us full circle to where I asked you why you consider "cult" a negative word.
Never mind, Tommy. I should know better by now.Have a good one.
Well considering you tried to get me to say it's a negative term as well as trying to get me to say I use it to describe other religions, I am not sure you really got the answer you wanted, but hey, I tried.
I wasn't really "trying" to get you to give any specific answer, Tommy.I'm just trying to educate myself on this particular subject; What is the difference between a religion and a cult, and why is one good and one bad.
There seem to be several posters commenting as if they know the answers to these things, but when asked for clarification, all I get is paranoid dodging and avoidance.
So, in a way, you have answered my question.You don't know, you just don't want to say so.Thanks.
"Paranoid Dodging and Avoidance"-yep, that's Tommy in a nutshell.
Now you know why most of us stopped trying to get Tommy to say anything of substance a long, long time ago. Tommy doesn't stand for anything. That would require defending positions, which by the way he doesn't have, so don't accuse him of ever saying anything! Nope, Tommy just throws stuff out there, and if you question him on any of it, he runs and hides behind a tree and barks "it wasn't me, it wasn't me!"
I agree Jeter. I will say that a persons religious beliefs should be open to scrutiny as a voter sholud know what type of person they are voting for.
Precisely! I always want to know if the guy I might vote for (or against) views it as his duty to promote Armageddon, as a means of accelerating his trip to heaven.
"I will say that a persons religious beliefs should be open to scrutiny as a voter sholud know what type of person they are voting for."
Perhaps you'd better move to another country such as Iran since our founding fathers wrote:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
[link to www.usconstitution.net]
"open to scrutiny" is not a religious "test".
I should have said a "required test"
There you go again parsing without the background to do it.
"Open to scrutiny" clearly implies a person's religious beliefs are part of the qualifications for holding office.
Why else would you scrutinize them?
Open to scrutiny means the people have the right to judge them based on their beliefs if they so choose to do so. Who are you to tell me or anyone else otherwise?
The point in the Constitution is that there should be no religious test as a qualifier.
The two are vastly different.
What voters consider to be their collective qualifications for office has nothing to do with what the government considers to be a qualification. People might consider Schwartzenegger to be presidential timber, but he is not qualified.
The Constitution simply does not instruct voters to disregard any factor, religious or otherwise.
The nail you have driven home is the difference between being "qualified" and being elected.
Even just a sniff of seeking rapture is sufficient for me to mark the candidate off my list - and I'm pretty sure would serve the same purpose for the sane 75% of our citizens.
I would tend to not support some one who believes some higher power is text messaging them on mental stability grounds rather than religious grounds.
Would you be comfortable if someone said that they drank some wine and it became Jesus' blood, and ate a cracker and it became Jesus's body?
The religious test means that a person can't be disqualified because of their faith or lack thereof, like the way someone who is 25 or born in Canada would be disqualified.
Voters can still consider someone's religious views when making their decision. That right can't be taken away. And that's as it should be, because if someone believes that we should sacrifice handicapped children to the God Balthazaar, then that's sort of a factor there. Obviously an extreme example, but it plays into what Chris said.
I suppose you would then agree you should consider a person's gender and race before voting for them.
Are you new here? Of course I don't believe that those things should be factors. The fact is that you can't legally stop people from considering people on those grounds. That's something the Constitution simply has no bearing on or power over, since you can't prove what each individual voter is basing their choice on.
What's the scenario here? Some question on your ballot that asks you if you considered the candidates' religious beliefs, and if you say "yes" then your vote doesn't count?
Let me add that the comparison of religion to race and gender doesn't make any sense because the latter two are genetic. You're born with your gender and race. What's more, there are obviously more varying degrees of religious faith that make a difference, which was the point of the Balthazaar sacrifice comment. Extremism should be weeded out, including religious extremism, and in order to do that the views of the candidates need to be scrutinized.
It sounds like the government of the people, by the people is at odds with itself.
Something that has no bearing on your qualifications to run for office may very well disqualify you in the minds of voters.
The matter of "constitutional qualifications" versus "popular qualifications" is not at odds with itself. One is legal, the other is a matter of public opinion. A forty year-old American child molester can legally become president. A Nobel Peace Prize winner born in England can't. They both have about the same chances of becoming President, however, based on their respective disqualifying factors.
I'm still with the founding fathers: some one's religion or lack thereof should not be taken into account when considering them for public office.
If someone doesn't make their faith a speech staple, then that's fine. However, when you have people saying that they want to take the country back for Christ, that speaks to the policies they're going to try to implement. That is a factor.
If the Founding Fathers wrote that people shouldn't take that sort of thing into consideration, that's advice you can take as you like. But it's still not in the Constitution.
What value is being able to run for office no matter what religion you are or aren't if people can disqualify you for it.
Why people should support a candidate for office isn't specifically addressed in the Constitution. It's not that kind of document.
But do you really believe disqualifying people from office because of their religious beliefs is the spirit this country was founded in?
Like it or not, that's the nature of democracy. People don't always vote the way you or I think they should. An Atheist has very little chance of getting to be president, whether the Founding Fathers wanted it that way or not. I'm not sure what remedy there is for that, outside of the philosophical argument itself.
I don't really think it has anything to do with the spirit this country was founded on. We have religious freedom to run for office and to evaluate candidates both. I don't see the inconsistency there.
And what I really find interesting is the use of the word "can". "What value is being able to run for office no matter what religion you are or aren't if people can disqualify you for it." What do you suggest? You can't very well prohibit such a thing. You can make the argument that people shouldn't do it, but it's just part of the system. It doesn't take value away from anything.
What do I suggest?
I suggest following the principles this country was founded on.
Discriminating because of religious beliefs isn't one of those principles.
Religion has no place in politics whether it's the candidates or voters who are introducing it.
I'm still not sure what you're using to judge what the Founding Fathers wanted, since you had to abandon your point about the "religious test" in the Constitution. Can you provide some quotes?
In any event, I'm not advocating that people should discriminate against someone based merely on their faith or lack thereof. But if someone expresses extremist religious views, then that is a valid concern. As I stated elsewhere, the important thing is how candidates separate their faith from their policy decisions. Considering that this country is founded on religious freedom, I can't imagine how the Founding Fathers would disagree with that principle. I'm not sure how you're disagreeing with it either, honestly.
"Religion has no place in politics whether it's the candidates or voters who are introducing it."
Let me add on that, there should be no place for religion in politics. That's exactly why a candidate's views should be analyzed. Taking any discussion or consideration out of the voting process obviously does not insure that our elected officials will keep religion out of their policies. If anything, it would create a risk of having more religious extremists in office, since we would have no way of weeding them out.
I'm willing to follow Johnny's advice : "
Religion has no place in politics whether it's the candidates or voters who are introducing it.
- with the substitution of "Government" for "politics".
THAT was the intent of the founders, or at least much closer than barring us from understanding the hate-wing zealots as bad for positions more elevated than doggie-do on shoe soles.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to consider the religious beliefs of any theocrat before voting for them is quaint and unsupported by any history or precedent.
If a Catholic were to say that he would be bound by orders from the Vatican, that would be relevant. If a Baptist were to say the Bible commanded him to smite all unbelievers, that would be relevant. If a Quaker were to say that he would disband the military, per his beliefs, that would be relevant. If Romney would be bound by a reversal of the 1978 revelation that Blacks were NOT inferior, that would be relevant also.
Some posters are confused about a religious test for office (only members of a certain denomination are eligible to hold office) and religious issues that will affect how the individual will perform his duties in office.
The test is applied by a bureaucrat, the issues decided by voters.
It is no accident that Protestant Republicans have found a sudden liking for Catholics on the Supreme Court. 5 Justices are now members of that once despised (by Protestants) religion - and abortion rights are under attack. Whotta coincidence.
So you wouldn't consider the religion of a Church of Scientology candidate? Or a Satanist candidate? You'd be comfortable, all things being equal, in casting your vote for a candidate who thinks Sun Myung Moon is here to complete the work of Jesus on earth?
As others have pointed out, your religion can't be used to determine elegibility for federal office. The constitution says nothing about how individual voters should vote. If it did, this wouldnt' be a democracy.
J. your religious analysis IS right on. And it was the Repubs who started this mess.
How sad that religion is still being brought up in this day & age and that some take it into consideration before supporting a Presidential candidate.
Who decided religion would start to play a major role in politics? Republicans. The Christian Coalition was created by Pat Robertson in 1989 and ran by Ralph Reed. Jeter, I don’t think I have to tell you neither Pat Robertson nor Ralph Reed NEVER endorsed Democrats, they were a Republican machine. The Coalition was a grassroots organization with over 450,000 members and almost 1,000 chapters located in all 50 states. Led by Ralph Reed, the Coalition organized local chapters, trains activists and potential candidates, provided voter "information," and supplies resources for mobilizing voters. Republicans wanted that large voting base and they are the ones that started to forcefully put the message that evangelicals wanted in the public arena. IMO it's good that religion is coming back to bite Republicans in the butt after they used it as a wedge issues for far too many years! There is a reason that we have separation of Church and State!
Romney stuck to the code. When these people refer to 'religions', 'churhes', or 'faiths', they mean only Christianity. All other religious beliefs are cults, including Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Aetheism, etc.
All Romey said was that Mormonism is a Christian faith. He made no attempt, whatsoever, to reach out to all religions. He even condemned non-religious belief.
We need a president who has the strength, intelligence, and courage to say that all religions are equally valid. . . . And to fight for that belief.
You make a good point. When Romney said that "Freedom requires religion", does anyone really think he was referring to Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism? It's only one of many factors which makes his statement absurd.
Nerzog,
I think you and a few others might be getting a bit nick-picky.
If a person's religion has no meaning in politics, then it shouldn't matter what a person's religion is. Right?
Does anyone believe Romney's Mormonism will affect his duties as POTUS? If so, one has to ask if it is just Romney's religion?
Personally, I don't care what a person's religion is when it comes to the Presidential candidates. What is important to me is whether the candidate's positions' on important issues (more-or-less) are the same as mine. If so, they get my vote.
On a side note, all the Mormon's I have known, (and I've known a number of them, and even met Mitt's father while he was Governor of Michigan,) have been industrious, generous, family oriented people. I don't share their religious beliefs, but the Mormon's and families I know here in Ohio, in Michigan, and in Utah, are good people. I haven't made up my mind who I would vote for in the primary, but as a Christian, I personally would feel comfortable with Mitt as President.
I haven't read his speech...yet...but if it said anything besides "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Then he said too much.
ANY candidate, of ANY political persuasion, should answer with ONLY this quote ANY time they are asked a question that touches on religion, faith, etc.
Dog,
If only it were so. While I agree with you in theory, unless all the candidates can agree to say it, the one's who do say it- will look like they are hiding something.
But I'm not really concerned with how the candidate "appear"...I'd be more interested in how the QUESTIONER appears, when met with that answer!
Obviously one's faith affects the outlook on policy matters. So of course while Religion shouldn't have any effect on politics, it still can.
That being said, Mormonism used to be a cult, but has largely mainstreamed itself. It's not as if Romney's going to try to legalize polygamy or anything. What's important isn't a person's faith, it's how they compromise between that and the reality of the world. Huckabee believing that AIDS was God's judgment against homosexuals, for instance, is a problem. That's the sort of thing where their religious beliefs become relevant, because it's important to know that they base their decisions on some tangible, objective information as opposed to blind faith.
The Huckabee comment may have been premature.
Homosexuality is "...an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk", according to Huckabee. Sinful is the key word there, and his opposition to funding a search for a cure and his suggestion that AIDS patients be quarantined implies that he has little sympathy. Like it's a gay disease, they brought it on themselves, and we shouldn't try to cure it. If it's unfair to say that adds up to him believing that God used it as a punishment for the "sinful" behavior, then I apologize. It's certainly a viewpoint that many fundamentalists have expressed, though.
Brab,
Even if some fundamentalists have believed such, I think it is important to find out what Huckabee's position is regarding HIV prevention and cure. You say he's opposed to funding to find a cure? I find that hard to believe, but if you can provide the link proving your assertion, I'm more than willing to reconsider.
As far as Huckabee and his faith, one may think it is divine providence that brought out this disease, but that doesn't mean one has no sympathy for those afflicted. If I may engage in a little generalization, Christianity at it's core believes in forgiveness and how "blessed are the lowly". I would think Huckabee, being a former minister, might have a similar view. (correct me if I am wrong.)
I personally don't know Huckabee's stance regarding Aids but perhaps he sees himself as one to help those who are unfortunate "sinners". I do believe GW Bush who's Christianity might be considered fundamentalist, has made aids funding for Africa and elsewhere a priority. (correct me if I am wrong.) My guess is tha GW and Huckabee might have a similar outlook.
Personally, I would not label any one Christian as unfeeling toward aids victims unless I heard them say it themselves.
"Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies."
That's not really eager to find a cure there. "Let the Hollywood celebrities deal with it". He's changed his position on it now, fortunately.
Whether someone believes "blessed are the lowly" or not doesn't make the policies any better. If Huckabee creates a policy that's in accord with beliefs that AIDS is part of God's plan and that AIDS is caused by homosexuality, then that policy is inherently unfair towards both homosexuals and anyone who has AIDS. Whether he has any sympathy or not, it doesn't reflect in the actions he takes. That's the issue. Someone can believe that they're doing the right thing, the moral thing according to moral teachings, while clearly causing extended human suffering. That's why it's important to figure out where they draw the line between their personal beliefs and their public policies.
Again, if I'm misrepresenting or overgeneralizing Huckabee, I'll withdraw that, but the example stands. If someone with Falwell's views was running, then you would have to wonder if they would be able to separate their personal faith from their public actions. Religion shouldn't matter, but it can obviously have an impact with certain people.
Brab,
I think we are in general agreement.
BTW thanks for the link to the 1992 statement. I think you referenced a more recent policy position, but I'm not sure. The one you provided is a little too dated. We've all learned a lot about Aids these past 15 years.
I knew pretty much everything about it by 1991, actually. I think a lot of other people did too. If that's genuinely why he's changed his position, then he shouldn't refuse to recant what he said at the time. He should gladly withdraw those comments, since he knows so much more know.
It's not fair to judge Huckabee on something he said while he was running for Senator from Arkansas, just like it's not fair to judge Romney on things he said while running for Senator and then Governor from Massachusetts. Both men are running for PRESIDENT now and need to reach out to a very different constituency...
Wait a minute. Strike that. Actually, its perfectly fair to judge people who will say whatever they need to in order to win votes and whose positions shift and spin depending on whose votes they are trying to win. Sorry for the confusion.
I do believe GW Bush who's Christianity might be considered fundamentalist, has made aids funding for Africa and elsewhere a priority. (correct me if I am wrong.)
AA, Junior made AIDS funding a priority in regards to abstinence only. 2/3rds of his funding go to abstinence in Africa where AIDS does not result from teenage sex but many more serious issues. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_bushs_aids_program_is_failing_africans
Bush arrives with carrot and stick Bush requires immunity from crimes against humanity by the International Court of Justice to grant the carrot to SA 07/08/2003 17:45 - (SA)
Johannesburg - President George W Bush arrives in Africa armed with his Millennium Challenge Account carrot of $10bn over three years to alleviate poverty, his $15bn pledge over five years to fight HIV/Aids and the US's Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (Agoa, which allows African exporters of garments and textiles duty-free access to US markets).
Underpinning this apparent largesse, however, is his uncompromising stick to drop developing countries from his list of military beneficiaries if they do not grant immunity to US military personnel who may be called to defend themselves against crimes against humanity by the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
yeah....nice christian guy.....
I only care about their religion when it spills over into public policy. For example, a person who thinks AIDS is God's punishment to gays might be inclined to stop funding for AIDS research. A person who believes that Jesus's return is imminent might be a little reckless in foreign policy matters. If they can keep their wacky beliefs compartmentalized while making decisions that affect the whole world, then I don't care what their religion is.
That's the reverse of the reasoning I was using to say that Huckabee believes that God created AIDS as a punishment. He thought that we shouldn't fund the research, which seems like something we should do for any other public health problem.
Maybe that was unfair of me, but otherwise his position on the matter seemed very hard to explain.
Brab and Nerzog,
I agree that you can take a look at someone's stated religious background and their previous decisions on making a judgment whether to vote for them or not. I think you, and others, have made good points regarding someone's frame of reference whether it it is religious or not, when they'll be called on to make decisions.
As to Huckabee's stance on Aid's research, here is what I found:
When asked about AIDS research in 1992, Huckabee said AIDS research received an unfair share of federal dollars when compared to cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
1992:"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote. "An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor (,) Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."
Since becoming a presidential candidate this year, Huckabee has supported increased federal funding for AIDS research through the National Institutes of Health.
Recent disclosure on Huckabee's website: "My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals," Huckabee said in a statement posted on his campaign website last month.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-12-08-huckabee_N.htmYes, I noted his change in stance, and I do appreciate it. What I'm curious to see is if the media portrays him as a "flip-flopper" they way we hear Democrats are even when they appear to change their minds on an issue.
I'm not sure which is worse, but they both sound scary
The Southern Baptist convention this week amended its official statement of beliefs to declare that a wife must: "submit herself graciously,"
Or
Brigham Young who said "You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham...".
"The Curse of Ham..." so that's where the kosher rules come from!
But that Baptist, one, hmmm. I think I prefer that one to: "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, is it still the husband's fault?"
Thanks for the laugh! My five wives will get a kick out of it. ;-)
Most religions today imply that any religion that is not their religion is a cult.
Since most of their religiousness is based on teachings from centuries past - they should look up the original meaning of the word, which is simply "religious practice".
The issue is that someone who believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago ain't gonna fund science education in schools.
Someone who believes abortion is murder is gonna try to get it banned.
Someone who believes that only through religion can liberty be obtained may have plans for unbelievers.
Someone who believes that they were anointed by god for the job might be somewhat cavalier about earthly law - as is our present dictator wannabe.
There are a thousand relevant questions to ask any Rethug (since they have been using god as an excuse for whatever evil they do for some time) about what effect religion will have on their governance. Shame that the MSM didn't ask em in 1999.
It is of the nature of the organized religions to believe, and in many cases publicly assert, that their faith is the only "true" faith. Mr. Bigot Land is no exception. Mind you, I am not playing Devil's Advocate. I am an equal opportunity religion basher. I didn't think anyone believed as I do until I read Sam Harris's The End of Faith and its companion essay, Letter to a Christian Nation.
But that's beside the point. Romney can't write a speech that doesn't get him into trouble. Remember how he pandered to the gun lobby (which is to say, the N.R.A.) by claiming he was a hunter, by which he explained that he didn't hunt deer, elk, or bighorn sheep. No, he only hunted -- and I quote! -- "varmints"! (He had to have obtained that word from an old Roy Rogers movie with Gabby Hayes delivering the quaint mot.) Do we really want an idiot like that in the White House?
Yet, some of us find Romney's Mormonism a lot less troubling than the Christianity of his closest rival in the God and country race: golly gee, aw shucks Huckabee. Note that the two of them, Romney and Huckabee, try to outdo each other on who's the most Christian of them all. When Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he didn't dare say anything negative about gays in a state that elected Barney Frank to national office, the same state that became the only one to fully sanction same-sex marriage as a matter of law.
And although Romney is quick to say he believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman, he didn't advocate quarantine of AIDS patients long after the CDC figured out that HIV could not be spread by casual contact. Nor did Romney make any pronouncements about homosexuality being "sinful," which in the minds of the Bigot Lands of this world equates to "aberrant," "abnormal," and "sick." The Bible tells them so. That same book that convinces them that man was created during a six-day period six thousand years ago and that he coexisted with dinosaurs.
Which really only suggests that Romney is slightly more intelligent than Huckabee. After all, Bigot Land announced early on that he would never throw his support behind Rudy Giuliani due to the latter's womanizing, multiple marriages, support for gay rights, and position on women's right to choose. Land is an equal opportunity bigot. Huckabee is, too. Do we really want a bigot like Huckabee in the White House?
McCain might seem the least objectionable, but there he was labeling Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance" before he announced his candidacy, then going to make up with Falwell at a commencement appearance once his hat was in the ring. Do we really want a hypocrite like McCain in the White House?
Hmm, I was just wondering, what is Ron Paul's achilles heel?
Definitions of "orthodox":
1.of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc. 2.of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved. 3.customary or conventional, as a means or method; established. 4.sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine.
I certainly agree that the Church of Jesus Christ is not Trinitarian, but isn't First Century Christianity sound, corect, established, and approved?
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This article http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the New Testament than any other denomination. For example, Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”Perhaps the reason the pastors denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their flock (and their livelihood).
As an atheist, I consider arguments between "Christians" and "Mormons" pretty silly. Does anyone ever point out that the Southern Baptist Convention is no longer "Baptist". The SBC no longer belongs to the International Baptist Convention because they no longer follow Baptist beliefs. Romney's speech was designed to help him in the Republican primary - it was aimed at evangelicals, not Protestents. It is also noteworthy that when JFK gave his speech John XXIII was Pope (the last great Pope, and perhaps the greatest in the last several hundred years) and we were on the verge of Vatican II. The Roman Catholic church did not proclaim that all adherents holding public office had to vote the church doctraine. Several, if not many, churches do now. Would Huckabee defy the SBC? Rudy says that he's a Roman Catholic, but his life history has put him so far outside church doctrine that I find it difficult to believe that he is eligible for communion - but no chuch official has said anything about that, unlike when Kerry ran.