McCain. Clinton in parentheses. But perhaps the Huckabee voters (many of whom may have never voted for Clinton or McCain) were the ones to have been more prone to object to the Mormonism of Romney. I have my doubts. At any rate I agree that there is something wrong with our system to the extent that it produces too few talented, competent, appealing candidates with histories of clean living. And too many of the other sort.

“The point of this post, as I see it, is that the Biblical-duty-to-vote-against-Romney argument applies to every religion other than the Evangelical faith–and its not really clear what we mean by Evangelical faith”

Perhaps, but this seems to put words in their mouths. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask: “Where would you stop, with your religious tests?” Their answer to this question is not very good, in my opinion, but they do seem to have an answer (“no proselytizing non-trinitarians”). So the slippery slope claim I think misses the mark. Their religious test seems bad in itself, but doesn’t necessary lead to other, more obviously bad, kinds of religious tests.

But while the rest of you are philosophically pondering each careful turn of a phrase, I’m just down in the muck wondering what makes someone accept one guy who leaves his wife and kids to marry a rich, young honey (or another who is intent on having his way with every women within ten feet of him) because he checked the box indicating an approved religious affiliation, while they must reject the guy who’s honest and faithful, because he actually believes that when God introduced his Son he wasn’t playing ventriloquist.

The best example of this currently in America is the general election if Huckabee gets the Republican nomination – or even if he is McCain’s running mate. If that happens, each of the reasons for not voting for Romney could be applied to not voting for Huckabee – and in Huckabee’s case there are examples from his time as governor where he actually did let his religious conviction cloud his political judgment. Southern Baptists, specifically, and evangelicals, in general, who refuse to vote for Romney due to his Mormonism will have no base for complaint when others refuse to vote for Huckabee (as Pres. or VP) due to his Southern Baptist-ism. There are millions of Americans who believe that Southern Baptists aren’t “Christian” in their actions and attitudes toward others – a simplistic stereotype that is no less true than the one that classifies Mormons as “not Christian” based on our differing view of the creeds. Essentially, taken to its logical conclusion, this mindset has the potential to place the role of governance solely in the hands of the largest religion / denomination in the country – and that is a scary proposition, indeed.

The larger, world application is the refusal of “non-Christian nations” to allow Christians a place in their governments, even though doing so fits *perfectly* into the argument Bruce is addressing in his response.

Many of the issues others have with Mormonism would disappear if those others understood the double standard to which they are holding Mormonism – and in almost all cases it really is a double standard that is being applied.

I think you have the line of reasoning about right. I think Bruce’s point is that the argument you’ve outlined also applies to any number of faiths (Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, many forms of Protestantism). The point of this post, as I see it, is that the Biblical-duty-to-vote-against-Romney argument applies to every religion other than the Evangelical faith–and its not really clear what we mean by Evangelical faith. If one is to apply a Christian test to a political candidate, it is unclear what that test should be. Great answer to the original blog.

Of course Bruce’s post was only a response to one blog posting; it was not meant as a response to Evangelicals generally. In general, I’m sure Evangelicals grapple with all sorts of moral issues, other than religion, that determine who will be their candidate: the environment, welfare, foreign aid, education, SSM, abortion, war and peace, etc. My guess is that most Evangelicals have many issues that influence their vote–not just some oversimplified pick-the-Christian test.

The theological anti-Romney argument seems to be:
1. Mormonism is a false gospel, perilous to salvation
2. A Romney presidency would help spread this gospel by lending an aura of legitimacy to it.
3. Therefore in the interest of saving people’s souls, we cannot support Romney

1) is false but it seems within the bounds of American civil society to hold this view–and it is *possible* for doctrines to be dangerous to salvaton, despite the importance of actions; 2) may indeed be true. So the argument has something compelling about it, which a different interpretation of John (i.e. emembering to love our enemies and care for their salvation) doesn’t seem to deny.

To be clear, I don’t like this form of argument at all (besides the fact that I completely reject the first premise). I’m not sure exactly why, but I don’t care for proposals to subvert the decisions of the republic to this or that evangelization or counter-evangelization effort. So even if we weren’t Christian (the subject of points #5 and #6) I wouldn’t think that should matter. And I think my sentiment on the issue is a fundamentally American republican sentiment. And yet I’m not sure that this post has responded to the anti-Romney argument directly.

I’ve been very open about my love and admiration for Pastor Cecil “Chip” Murray (featured in the footage trailer Kaimi so kindly linked to). One of my friends took a young Mormon man to talk to Pastor Chip about his faith struggles. The young man was deciding whether or not to go on a mission. Quite a scene, that–taking the issue to an AME pastor! Pastor Chip listened (I have rarely met anyone who listens so intently to everyone who speaks to him) and then, having been invited to give counsel, said, “It sounds to me like you should serve a mission for your church.”

I do find it sad that I have NEVER been inside a Baptist church without seeing anti-Mormon material prominently displayed. And I found deep incongruity in the presence of _The Godmakers_ in a NON-denominational bookstore. (Non-denominational–except for…)

One more quote from Pastor Chip, which will be in the doc’s Special Features: “Believe as you will, but if you think there’s a God in this universe who has patted you on the head and told you you’re the best thing since toast, you are still living in another century…The question is, what can we do TOGETHER under the banner of God?”