Romney, Bias and Mormon Flummery

Clarence Page wrote a piece about Mitt Romney and Mormonism and why the Iowa Huckabee surge in the polls may be in part a result of 'anti-Mormon bias'. Mr. Page points out maladroitly that the founders were for religious toleration and that for voters to not vote for candidates with religious practices anti-pathetic to their own is a form of intolerance and bias or even prejudice.

Clarence Page, a usually good writer on political affairs has blundered in this instance into the snare of political correctness that all religious practices and beliefs are without substance and equivalent in the algebra of politics-they are not. Mr. Page has accepted the wrong political belief that a Christian should vote for a Satanist because it would not has as much meaning as advocating that an American that would not have voted for a communist candidate in the 1950's was biased against communism and that the founders would not have intolerance for people because of their personal social or economic beliefs. There are real and substantial differences in religion, economics and social beliefs that affect what a candidate would do if he were in political office-to say that a candidate sets his religion and social beliefs aside upon taking office and just does the political engineering is b.s.

The founders were for religious tolerance and for keeping the church out of state to the extent that no theocracy would form, yet they did not prefer to be ruled by extremists of any sort and preferred a majority reflecting candidate generally. In the first 184 years of the nations existence no one besides a nominal protestant at least ever got the job of Presidency. It wasn't that the founders just didn't care-they did and so did every generation of American voters since.

Mr. Romney is a hardened trans-nationalist that will continue to support the erosion of in the interests of the people of the United States if elected President. Mr. Romney's extra-terrestrial universal religious beliefs are very unChristian and for Christians would represent the first rule by a non-Christian in the nation's history. For Christians of many sorts that coincides with a period of a decline in the nation's relationship with God, and that could indicate more troubles ahead of Biblical scale.

If elected President Mr. Romney would undoubtedly contribute to the strength of Mormon evangelistic efforts and Mormon wealth in America and abroad, at a time of global questions about religion and society the minority Mormonist practices and beliefs would not help clarify the basic issues to the world. Mr. Romney is the wrong foot to put forward with the indefensible polytheistic character of the cult in the context of global Mohammedanism and its belief in one God. For Mr. Page and many new agers the religious issues is a detached from reality abstract question of no consequence. Mr. Page even compared it to the Shi's-Sunni differences as something to avoid. He believes in error perhaps that there is no social historical basis for that particular animosity and that it is an abstract theologically based argument instead-in error. Dividing American leadership up into a myriad faithless, abominable modes is the wrong way for the nation to go in 2008. A simple faith in God, reflecting a Christian majority with secular work for a humanitarian and intellectually free and progressive populace with secure borders, a balanced budget, optimism about the future, space colonization and personal and public religious tolerance is the way to go. It will take tough love and patience presenting a rational and right Christian ethic for America to move forward with assurance through the world's troubles ahead. The rosy utopia of a global economic false democracy or in fact corporatism will not mature for a number of reasons into a democratic fact that would do anything but repress the U.S.A. and create tyranny abroad.

The code words of political correctness often run rough-shod over meaningfully accurate history of causes and reasons why people have made political choices. The reason why Americans never elected a Catholic President before John F. Kennedy are a case in point of over-simplifying history in order to support a political cause.

The founders of the United States were revolutionaries against big government, over-centralized authority and foreign rule. Not only were they against King George they were to a substantial measure dissidents from the Church of England. They would not support Catholic rule either, for Catholicism had historical roots of association with Imperial rule in Europe that continued in Mexico, Latin America and other colonial areas of the world. Nor until the Mexican revolution did Hapsburg power become finally disassociated from our neighbor to the south. Concerns about a Catholic President's historical association with imperial rule and even the inquisition would not have faded away quickly from the political concerns of enlightened American voters.

The Index was a corollary of the Inquisition that listed people the Catholic Church considered it's enemies. The Index had many of the enlightenment, reformation and renaissances greatest intellectuals and leaders upon it-and the Index was officially in existence until John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960 at which time it was retired quietly centuries after the inquisition ended.

Catholics in then United States had a different role today as Christians and Americans that may merge into even the White House if they can support U.S. democracy and nationalism rather than trans-nationalism that is pervasively corrupting the security of the United States. Only through majority mergers politically speaking with nationally minded protestants and priesthood of believers independent Christians will the United States survive the expanding polytheism and anti-Christian real-politik of much of the globes commercial and communist elites.