On CNN.com, David Frum has written an excellent and intriguing article entitled: "Should Romney's faith be an obstacle?"
Obviously I don't think his faith should be a big deal, but I understand the concerns of those who think it is. It certainly seems to complicate things. But should complexities matter?
I believe a healthy and robust dialogue becomes imperative to reach better mutual understanding--especially when it involves religious nuances. People must also be willing to suspend their own personal biases and strive to see things from the "other" perspective.
While I think most people tolerate a little faith in the public sector, it's vexing to see religious bigotry come out (whether soft or hard) when Mormonism is made an issue. Somehow, it then becomes a different ball-game.
I recommend people judge Romney as an individual and not by his Mormonism--what does that even mean anyway? Take him on his own terms. At least that's what I would want for myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
For the record, I like how Frum points out that by using the "triune God" language, the Manhattan Declaration defines "Christianity" so narrowly that it would also exclude some of our past presidents:
"The next wave of social conservatism is presenting itself as a particularly Christian cause, with Christian defined in a way that would exclude not only Mitt Romney, but also the man who created Tiny Tim and Ebenezer Scrooge. (Charles Dickens was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian.) For that matter, neither George Washington, nor John Adams, nor Thomas Jefferson, nor Abraham Lincoln was a believer in the Trinitarian God of the Manhattan Declaration."
While Romney's particular brand of Christianity shouldn't matter in terms of the presidency, I still think this (related) question remains fresh and intriguing: How Do You Define A "Christian"?
Post a Comment