A Few Words on Mitt and Mormons and Huckabee and Dems UPDATE
While Mitt Romney is running for president, there is a Mormon in Congress whose job is far more influential than a former governor. Who could it be? Its Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But, while Romney is expected to give a dissertation on the differences between Mormons and everyone else, Reid is spared this incessant questioning.
Why? Because he is an elected Democrat, and no one expects them to actually hold to the tenets of their religion(s). For proof of the preceding statement see; Clinton, Bill, Kennedy, Ted, and Kerry, John. Ted and John claim to be Catholic and yet run afoul of many of the tenets of the Catholic Church (Multiple divorces anyone? Support for abortion, etc)
This is another time around on the old double standard, Democrats can claim affiliation with any religious group and give campaign speeches from pulpits, but, the instant Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, runs for office we see articles like this from the Politico about how the IRS is investigating Huckabee’s campaign. Isn’t holding one side to a different standard of belief, or faith, or at the very least faithfulness, than the other on religion bias? Aren’t we exhorted to accept every religion? Or, are we supposed to accept their religions only if they don’t follow the tenets of their religion? That really doesn’t make sense…
Mike Huckabee won’t be our next president for a variety of reasons, but, that he is a Southern Baptist is the one that will be attacked with the most vigor. Wait and watch as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have what will amount to almost a competition to see which of them can speak from behind more pulpits between now and the Democratic Convention. My money is on Hillary by close to two to one, most of them will be black churches too…
Why the truly religious get bashed for their views and the purportedly religious get a pass isn’t too hard to figure out, if you think about it.
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Lawrence O’Donnell about religion.
The one thing scripture isn’t is “Flexible”.
I think I can explain.
People want their politicians to put the best interests of the COUNTRY ahead of their individual personal religious beliefs.
Americans are people of many different faiths and most are pretty indifferent and “flexible” about what rules of their religion they follow. (Know many Catholics who only have sex for children, and never use birth control, do you? If so, I also have a bridge I could sell you…)
Americans do not want someone who will NOT subject them to the rules of one branch of one religion. Remember, many Americans are not Christian, and those who are do not agree with each other about the religious rules.
It is not hypocritical, but rether genuine-ness, to choose political leaders who– like just about ALL Americans– pick and choose which religious rules to follow, if any at all.
We are not voting for religions. We are voting for political leaders.
We want our politicians to vote in the best interest of AMERICA first, and their personal religious notions– NOT AT ALL.
The problem is, you missed the entire point. Democrats who claim to be religious in whatever religion are not subject to the same scrutiny of their religious beliefs because no sane person expects them to live by the tenets of their faiths. Republicans and other conservatives are subject to immense scrutiny and slandered with the “Fundamentalist” label that aside from Christian Republicans is reserved for Muslim terrorists. So, you would rather elect those who claim to be religious and then go out of their way to not follow what their religion holds true? If you are religious and won’t follow your god’s rules, what hold can the laws of man possibly have on you? That, sir, is the definition of hypocrisy: 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. Dictionary.com definition
Words mean things. Voting for people who embody the term hypocrisy is not a good way to get trustworthy leaders.