Jun
21
Question of the day!
Uncategorized Add comments
Brownback Sorry for Mormon Comments
“Republican presidential hopeful Sam Brownback on Monday telephoned rival Mitt Romney to apologize for a campaign staffer’s e-mail criticizing the Mormon church.”
It seems I’m missing something but, I am unclear what’s Browback apologizing for here? Is he saying what someone believes is non-relevant? Or is he saying, “because I went from Protestant to Catholic, I don’t want matters of faith brought up.”
So I’m curious what you think. Does it matter if someone running for president is:
Mormon?
Atheist?
Muslim?
Scientologist?
Branch-Davidian?
Believes in UFOs?
Believes Elvis is alive?
June 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am
It matters what a candidate believes if the candidate acts on those beliefs. If they say they have faith, but their faith does not manifest into works, their faith is dead. This is the condition of most major candidates: dead faith. Another word is: hypocrisy.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
First, it’s been a while since I’ve stopped by. I love the new layout!
Mitt Romney’s Mormonism is definitely a huge turnoff to me. However, so is his lack of respect for the Constitution, which is what he would be elected and sworn to uphold. If he were to come out promising (credibly) that, as the Chief of the Executive branch of government, he would only enforce those laws that were in line with the Constitution, would veto any that violate the Constitution, and would eliminate all cabinet positions and agencies that are not explicitly constitutional (Dept. of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Health and Human Services, the EPA, just to name a few) I would consider overlooking his adherence to a false religion, as I think that the governmental philosophy would do more to free true Christians to further the Gospel than anything else.
I don’t take George Bush’s claims to be a real Christian too seriously though either. Actually, I think Romney would be easier to discuss in a religious setting, as it is much easier to show that his religion is false than it is to convince people that a person’s fruit is not in line with his statement of faith. Too many people are content with “he says he’s a Christian, so he must be.”
June 26th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
You have both made excellent points. And isn’t that what politics has become? Whoever can put forth the best marketing to the base (because we are sheep and will believe whatever we are fed) will be the winner. I think we all hope for real change, but scripture says we get the leaders we deserve… so don’t hope for much this go around… or the next, if we don’t start a revival. And for those of you just tuning in - revival starts first in your own heart.. you take it to your neighbors and so on.. I can’t think of any “top down” revivals off the top of my head (but I could be wrong on that - I’m sure someone will point it out quickly if I am wrong).
June 27th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I can’t think of any “top down” revivals off the top of my head (but I could be wrong on that - I’m sure someone will point it out quickly if I am wrong).
The only one I can think off the top of my head is the one led by the King of Ninevah, which really bugged Jonah.
I don’t see the President of the USA leading a revival like that though, and even if he tried (whomever “he” is or may be), I don’t see the nation following. If it is to happen here, it will be as you said, from the bottom up, and then only by the grace of God.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Grace of God, indeed.
What I was really looking for in this comment trail however was some definite answers. For example, for me personally:
Mormon? No.
Atheist? No.
Muslim? No.
Scientologist? No.
Branch-Davidian? Obviously, no.
Believes in UFOs? Depends.
Believes Elvis is alive? Depends if he has sideburns.
Add to these two more:
“Believes Evolution as fact?” Depends.
“Believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and states his actions are guided by that belief” Depends. It should never be an automatic pass, because he has rhetoric. Jimmy Carter and “W” know the rhetoric, but their actions are often diametrically opposed to their words.