A number of people, including several of my friends, are saying they cannot vote for Newt Gingrich because of his past marital infidelities. I addressed this in a recent post and pointed out that God seems to be far more concerned with a public official's religious beliefs than it does about how many wives a public official has had (David, Solomon)--or whether he has committed sins of the flesh outside of marriage (Abraham).
In the Old Testament, polytheism is dealt with far more harshly than polygamy or even adultery.
In this connection, I pointed out that Mitt Romney, being a Mormon, is necessarily polytheistic. So why (the question was implied but not made explicit) were my friends taking the position that Christians should not vote for Gingrich, but were not taking the position that Christians should not vote for Romney?
It was an a fortiori argument: "from the stronger." If one can vote for Romney, despite the fact that the reason for not voting for him was (Biblically speaking) stronger, then why can't one vote for Gingrich?
I am, admittedly, a Monogamist for Gingrich. I am going to begin calling my pro-Romney friends "Monotheists for Romney," just to underscore that they are not applying similar standards to their own chosen candidate.
Hopefully, they will still like me.
12 comments:
Martin,
I am still curious about who you will vote for if Romney is the GOP nominee facing the President, who is both a monotheist and a monogamist.
Romney is a Mormon. That means he is not a monotheist.
Lee,
I said the President is a monotheist.
My apologies, doing a double take at what you wrote.
> I said the President is a monotheist.
Whether he's a Muslim or a Christian, he's got that one covered.
Lee,
As anyone not wearing a tinfoil hat knows, the President is a Christian. I am hoping Martin posts on this thread about the likely scenario that Romney will be the GOP nominee. If Martin really believes that God might punish the US for electing a Mormon President, then he would really have no choice except to vote for Obama. But even that wouldn't be enough, because Romney will certainly carry Kentucky regardless of how Martin votes. In order to protect America from God's wrath, if Romney is the GOP nominee, Martin should endorse the President, make a contribution to his campaign, and perhaps even volunteer to work for the Obama campaign in a swing state like Indiana or Ohio. So I'm sure that Martin is really hoping Newt gets the nomination so that he isn't faced with that dilemma.
> As anyone not wearing a tinfoil hat knows, the President is a Christian.
If that's true, then I'm surprised the President doesn't draw more scorn than he does from the anti-Christian wing of Vital Remnants respondees.
Now let me adjust my tinfoil hat for a minute to ponder this question: which Christian denominations consider the Q'uran to be holy?
I ask that because I've heard Obama refer to the "Holy Q'uran."
> If Martin really believes that God might punish the US for electing a Mormon President, then he would really have no choice except to vote for Obama.
I guess that might depend on whether God finds the Q'uran to be more or less holy than the Book of Mormon.
Lee,
"If that's true, then I'm surprised the President doesn't draw more scorn than he does from the anti-Christian wing of Vital Remnants respondees."
Its not merely speculative, its an established fact that Obama is a Christian. I don't scorn anyone merely because they have faith.
"I ask that because I've heard Obama refer to the 'Holy Q'uran.'"
Not knowing the context, I assume he was merely showing a modicum of respect for the beliefs of others, as is appropriate. He is the President of all Americans, including Muslims. Of course conspiracy theorists always grasp at whatever straws seem to support their theories, and ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Martin must be in a real dilemma considering the casino money backing Newt.
It's hard to imagine a context in which a Christian would or should refer to the Q'uran as "the Holy Q'uran." For a Christian to say it is holy is at the very least to display a remarkable ignorance of, or indifference to, his own theology.
Nor is it necessarily a good way to show respect for Muslims. I can respect a Muslim as a person, respect his right to be a Muslim, and still withhold respect from the religion itself.
In fact, for someone whose religious beliefs ought to preclude him from saying the Q'uran is holy to go ahead and say it anyway, is patronizing.
But Obama is not alone in such patronization. Bush referred constantly to Islam as a "religion of peace", and in some sense it is. Peace is defined in Islam as the state that will exist when sharia is observed by all. That makes anyone who is not a Muslim a source of unrest and conflict.
Lee,
"Peace is defined in Islam as the state that will exist when sharia is observed by all. That makes anyone who is not a Muslim a source of unrest and conflict."
Isn't that exactly what the bumber sticker "Know Jesus, Know Peace; no Jesus, no Peace" means, except about Christianity instead of Islam? There are millions of American Muslims, and yet they don't seem to have any more problem living in peace in America than any other group.
Lee wrote: "Bush referred constantly to Islam as a 'religion of peace'"
Interestingly, I don't remember the wingnuts calling him a secret Muslim the way they do Obama.
So Lee, why is Obama calling the Koran "holy" evidence of Obama being a Muslim, but Bush calling Islam a "religion of peace" isn't evidence of Bush being a Muslim.
It's funny how the tinfoil hats didn't come out until Obama became president.
Lee,
There is a survey which shows that the vast majority of American Muslims aren't interested in having sharia adopted by US courts:
http://www.ispu.org/GetReports/35/2416/Publications.aspx
Post a Comment