Thursday, December 06, 2007

Romney thinks (or hopes) we're all stupid

So today's his big "So what if I'm a cultist?" speech. Among good and sensible things that he (reportedly) will say, he (reportedly, and by contrast) will say this:
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.
No... no, it really wouldn't.

Here's Article VI of the Constitution (the part you either haven't actually read, Governor, or dearly hope we don't actually read):
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Look, Governor, bubbula, -- can I call you Mitt? Mitt: I'm not a branch of the government, per se. I'm a voter. I'm a free citizen. I can ask you to explain anything I want to ask. I can ask you what your favorite color is, or whether you like extra-crispy or original recipe. And you can answer, or not.

Or I can ask a really fundamental, meaty question — like asking you about your worldview. Which necessarily requires a religious answer. To suggest that such questions are off-limits is, wellsir, it's really dumb.

See, Mitt: there's no Constitutional provision preventing private citizens from asking questions about religion. In fact, that very right is guaranteed, and in so m any words. You might recall the expression "freedom of speech." It's guaranteed in the first amendment.

Now, of course you can do what you've been doing — dodge, misdirect, mislead. And when you do that, you pretty much end up telling me what I need to know anyway.

And you can do this, too — what you're trying to do in this speech. You can try to tell me I'm violating the Constitution when I ask you these questions. you can try to make me feel bad for wanting to understand why a cultist thinks the way he thinks, and if I want a cult-thinker at the head of the Executive branch.

And, in a way, that tells me what I need to know, too.

It tells me that you're either really... em... uninformed about the Constitution.

Or it tells me that you hope I am.

Either way, it does shorten my list.

So... thanks!

Oh and by the way: we all remember that Evangelical Roman Catholic Presbyterian Hugh Hewitt (here known as "Squish") has added "cult-apologist" to his resume. He's really excited about it, too -- more so than other things.

I was listening yesterday as he chatted with professional God-hater Christopher Hitchens. Here's what struck me: Hitchens droned on and on in his contempt for Christ ("alleged birth") and Christianity. Hugh's pulse never altered, he asked a few questions, really challenged nothing.

Oh, but then Hitch started talking about Romney, who he regards as a dangerously deluded nutcase.

My, then Hugh got worked up! He was animated, he was upset; he cut Hitchens off, interrupted him, challenged him again and again, and let him know how absurd he thought Hitchens was being.

So, from this I learned about Hugh's issue taxonomy:
Slander Christ and Christians: no big deal
Slander this year's designated cultist: BIG deal
UPDATE: a transcript of the speech is online. And yes, indeed, he said it just like this:
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. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.
Translation: "The Constitution says you can't ask any more embarrassing questions about my cult."


centuri0n said...


Is that hebrew? I thought it was yiddish?

Dr. Caligari said...

Bubbula, accent on the first syllable, is Yiddish, meaning something like "kiddo." It is derived from the Hebrew boobah (accent on the second syllable), meaning a doll.

Alex said...

I guess I finally came to a place where I disagree with you. Before I begin, let me just say that I believe that Mormonism is a cult and a heresy to the True Gospel. With that said, there will come a day when we all will have to vote for a "non-Christian" or "believer" and will have vote based on how that candidate's worldview aligns with our worldview.

That is how I am choosing to vote in this election. That is how I would have voted for Jefferson or Franklin had they run today. And as of right now that is why I'm voting for Romney.

But, I see your points and they are helping me continue the process of choosing the next leader of our country.



DJP said...

That's really fine with me, Alex; I'm not really sure you do disagree with me.

Read everything I've written about him (--if you want to!), and you'll never see me saying nor suggesting that anyone shouldn't vote for him simply because he's a Mormon. There are people who make that argument; I'm just not one of them.

What I have insisted (and will continue to insist) is that worldview questions (and thus religious questions) are legitimate to ask. And I'll point out that his evasions are lame.

I also will point out that he's a serial flip-flopper. In fact, I'm likelier not to vote for him because I simply don't trust him, than because he's a cultist.

Though that's not a plus.

Are we still disagreed?

Alex said...

Thanks Dan. I respect that position and answer. I guess the only thing I would say we disagree is in his "flip-flop" label. I know many base that on past "sayings" he has made. Indeed, that initially made me not want to vote for him at first. But then I looked at what he "did" by testing his record and he "did" what he now "says" is his position.


Carlo said...

I hear what both Dan and Alex are saying. I just want to say something little different from Alex. In one sense, or probably the true sense - there are really only two worldviews - the non-Christian worldview and the Christian worldview. So in that sense, Romney doesn't share my worldview at all.

Charles Krauthammer a FNC contributor and Washington Post opinion writer (I think) is one of the greatest conservative minds today. I listen to him on Special Report with Brit Hume, and I'm like, wow, that was deep. Krauthammer also is a devout atheist and evolutionist. So Krauthammer does not share my worldview - but he has a shade of a worldview which has the effect of agreeing with my worldview as it applies to politics. I believe this is the case with Mitt Romney.

Of all the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney's ungodly worldview has the effect of agreeing with the Christian worldview - (he is for a pro-life amendment and for an amendment banning gay marriages and his position on the war on terror also is agreeable). I believe Romney holds other positions that are more conducive to a Christian worldview - lower taxes (exactly 28% of my gross income is taxed on every paycheck never to be seen again – I’m including and taking a pessimistic view on social security - which leads to less giving on my part). Other positions may not be placed in a nice box of the Christian worldview like immigration, but I agree with Mitt Romney's position on immigration.

Dan brings up some good points about not trusting Romney because of his flip-flop. But I believe it's possible for political candidates to flip-flop and follow through with their flip-flop. President Reagan converted from a democrat to a Republican (and I realize his case is not similar to Romney), but also President Bush I converted from pro-choice to pro-life after being asked by Reagan to be on his running ticket.

The second person that is in most conformity with my worldview would be Fred Thompson - who for now, I am sticking with to voting for in the primaries. He's not everything I'm looking for, but I think most qualified, most trustworthy and most palatable. I also think a Fred Thompson presidential candidacy would have less distractions of a Romney or Huckabee presidential candidacy. Thompson’s candidacy won’t have the Mormon distraction nor the former Baptist preacher candidacy. I’m not putting a lot of stock on the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primaries. I think the media is going nuts on the Huckabee phenomenon. I’m hoping people in the other primaries won’t just flock to Huckabee as a response to Romney or because he is supposedly a Christian. I sure would like to know why evangelicals are apparently flocking to Huckabee. He has a bad record on taxes, immigration, and some other issues and I’m just not going to vote for someone in a primary because they’re a former Baptist preacher notwithstanding his unorthodox views of who he would call a Christian brother and who may preach on the pulpit.

Lars said...


While I agree with you that world view questions are legitimate, only a very few seriously consider that as a criteria for approval of a presidential candidate.

Fore the most part we are left on our own to figure out where each candidate is coming from and exactly what influences decisions he may have to make.

This looks like another "hold your nose" choice for me next November.

It's good to know that God is in control at least.

James Lush said...

I think the point that Dan was trying to make was that Mitt is open to any kind of questions regarding anything and he has to be prepared to answer them. The constitution does not restricts anybody from running for President based on a "religious" test but I dare say a Satanist would have a chance of running by saying, "My faith is not an issue etc.." Well the same applies to Mitt. Our worldview point is important. What we believe dictates how we behave. Yes Mitt holds to some areas that christians do, so is he a good choice, maybe but like Dan there is something about him I just dont like and I don't trust him. This election will be a tough one for christians to decide on.

Kaffinator said...

Dan, this just in (if you hadn't seen it): Christianity Astray reports that Wayne Grudem liked the Romney speech.

In particular, he would contest your reading of the constitutionality of religious questions:

"If as evangelicals we are going to support the principles on which our nation was founded, then we need to defend the principles of religious liberty. That means that non-evangelicals are not only full citizens but eligible for office as well. I would hate to see us come to the point where we would essentially be saying non-evangelicals are welcome to be citizens but we will never ever allow them to become president."

DJP said...

I am at a loss to understand what possible conflict you see between that statement and anything I've said. Could you clarify?

Kaffinator said...

Sorry, maybe I should have started my quote one sentence earlier:

"If evangelical Christians won't support any non-evangelical, it functions as a religious test for office that the constitution says should not happen."

You are banking on the right to ask any sort of question you like. But Grudem says Evangelica...erm, that is, Biblical Christians, as a significant voting bloc, have a constitutional responsibility to focus on those issues that will affect Romney's competence to govern. And Grudem argues that membership in a church with odious views of the nature of Christ is not one of those issues. Therefore, the right thing to do is to stick to the issues that matter in a political context.

At least, that's how I'm reading him. Does that help?

Paul said...

Personally, I lean toward original recipe.

DJP said...

Hm. I call that "Extra Soggy."

Prefer Extra Crispy myself.

Christian said...

Good post. Glad to see there are a few Christians that, unlike Wayne Grudem, get it and aren't afraid to say so. (Just because men have given you a Ph.D. at a seminary doesn't mean you are wise. What did the Apostle Paul say about the scholar? Even Paul didn't claim to come with "enticing words of man's wisdom.") Be discerning and "test everything."

When you stand before Jesus, He will not be happy when you tell him you voted for a de facto Satan worshiper, who thinks, like his father, that he will be like God someday. Will Jesus be happy with you when you tell Him, "Well, Wayne said said I should vote for Mitt Romney, so I followed him." You have the Spirit - reason for yourself!

God told the Israelites to " capable men from all the people -- men who fear God,..."

While I'm not convinced God is pleased with a Democratic Republic - He wants to be King, you know - it is still His will that when we select men to rule over us, we select men who fear God.

For more on problems with a Mormon in the White House, both spiritual and secular, check out

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too!)

Carlo said...


You wrote: "Glad to see there are a few Christians that, unlike Wayne Grudem, get it and aren't afraid to say so."

My response: I don't know if there is something that Grudem "doesn't get" or that he is afraid of saying anything. He has his reasons for why he is endorsing Romney. I think he has some good reasons.

But if I may pick up on Dan's title of this blog with a different twist - there's some hoopla about Huckabee I think making a statement about the Mormon doctrine of Christ being Satan's brother (just typing this, gives me the creeps) and Romney responded I think on FNS saying that Mormon doctrine is being misinterpreted. Uh, no it's not. According to Mormon 'Apostle' McConkie on "Mormon Doctrine" they assert that Jesus is the brother of Satan (and that Christ was not eternal and earned godhood and that He was born physically of God as a literal son with Mary). Now, either Romney thinks (or hopes) we're all stupid and he's a liar or he doesn’t know Mormon Doctrine . Granted Mormon doctrine can does change but don't tell us that is a misinterpretation of Mormon doctrine!

isafakir said...

Mormonism is a heresy but the Inquisition, chattel slavery, invasion of privacy and burning at the stake and Imprimater and protecting predatory priests and nuns from prosecution and being best friends with Goebbels and the Apartheid mahafs in SA and signing a friendship treaty with Mussolini and awarding Ratso Mladic and Milosevic and Radovan Karadic "defenders of the faith" awards and transporting people for sale in ships and so on are NOT heretical: give me one Christian sect which never did one of these things (except possibly the Minnonites)

DJP said...

You mean "Mennonites," but your list simply shows that you don't have a fundamental grasp of what Christianity is. I'll go you one better: show me one single Christian who hasn't sinned. But you can't. And it's irrelevant. Because the central message of Christianity isn't Christians. The central message of Christianity is Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, dead, buried, and bodily resurrected. The central message is Jesus Christ's person and work. Christians need Him because they know themselves to be sinners. Do you know that about yourself? Have you found the salvation that is in Christ alone? This essay attempts to point folks like you in the right direction.