Definitions for 2008 Election: Are YOU Informed?
We have a few major problems with the debate in the 2008 elections. Far too many people, with the leftists in the Media in the lead, are using words incorrectly and causing the debate on the candidates and issues to go wildly off track, so much so that no one has a clue what they are talking about. We need to get back to using words that we KNOW the definition of and we need to do it before people begin casting their first Primary ballots. That being said, there are two words in particular that are causing us trouble in the 2008 election, words to which we desperately need to understand the definitions.
1. Bigot
Mitt Romney’s folks are the guilty party for misusing this word. People like Hugh Hewitt and the rest of team Romney constantly do their best to squelch debate on “the Mormon question” by claiming that anyone who discusses it is a “bigot.”
My 1968 edition of the Standard College Dictionary defines bigot as such:
Bigot 1. One whose attitude or behavior expresses intolerance, as because of race, religion, politics, etc., 2. A narrow-minded, intolerant adherent of a particular religion.
Now, to question if a Mormon is a real Christian or not is not a bigoted question. It is a discussion of the relative aspects of Mormonism that do or do not adhere to general Christian doctrine, one based on theological facts. Look again at the definition. It is centered around intolerance and hatred, not theological discussion.
Few pundits — in fact not one that I know of — have said theyhate Mormons. No one in the mainstream is saying they shouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney because he is somehow evil for being a Mormon. In fact, I cannot even tell that “the Mormon question” was raised decades ago when his father tried to run for president so it really isn’t the issue here. Certainly, very many theological commentators have made the credible case that Mormons have enough doctrinal differences from Christianity to make them not members of a Christian faith. (For some of my own reasons that Mormons aren’t Christians, go to this one I wrote in early in 2006)
But, the fact that Mormons are not Christians does NOT mean they are hated for it nor does it mean that anyone who doubts a Mormon is a Christian hates them for it. I don’t think Jews are Christians, but I’d vote for one. I can like a fellow from India and want to vote for him even if he should not be a Christian.
Anyone who claims that it’s bigotry for questioning Mormonism’s merits as a Christian faith are either trying to squelch debate like Hewitt, or simply have no clue what the word bigot means. One is disingenuous, the other merely ignorant.
2. Experience
This is one that is being liberally tossed around on the Democrat side. Those attacking Obama because he has no “experience” seem to have a few problems with definitions.
So, what is “experience” for a presidential candidate, anyway? What type of experience is there that qualifies a candidate to be a president.
Short answer: None.
Long answer: In the Constitution there are but three qualifications (and one is now irrelevant) to become president. Let us quote Article 2., section 1, clause d:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
So, qualification one is to be a natural born citizen and number two is to be at least 35 years of age. That’s it, folks.
So, gentle reader, this means that most likely a great number of the people reading this are qualified to be president! I am qualified to be president.
The Founders did this on purpose. For one thing they wanted to stop any foreigner from coming here, acting the pretender at being a loyal American, then becoming president only to end up serving a foreign master. They felt a natural born citizen might have more loyalty to the nation than one of foreign birth… though they’d probably be stumped by Democrats today. They also wanted someone who had attained some level of maturity, and since you can’t decide on an individual basis who is mature and who isn’t and need a catchall age, they chose 35. Remember, people often died before they reached their 50th birthday in those days, so 35 was pretty old. If you weren’t mature by then, you had major problems that would presumably show up long before you became president.
This means that on a strictly Constitutional basis Obama, whether you like him or not, is as qualified as anyone to become president of the United States. This of course, is where we as voters step in to determine who we like and for what reasons.
Now, since there are no actual requirements to be president, this means experience is a nebulous issue. We chose Eisenhower, but he had never even declared himself a member of any political party until about 10 minutes before he decided to run for president much less had experience to be president. He’d never had a real career outside the military and he had never held office. Ike was merely a general, famous and battle tested of course, but not “experienced” as an executive. His other merits may have made him a good candidate, but experience to be president? No one really has that because experience means that they’d have been one before and no one running for the first time has ever had that (save one running for the second term, naturally)! Heck, we chose William Henry Harrison on much the same basis as we chose Ike… in fact, Harrison had even more experience than Ike. At least Harrison had been 12 years a territorial governor of the Indiana Territory.
We can squabble over who has better experience, but it just isn’t factual to say that no experience disqualifies a person to become president. If it were, most of our presidents would not have passed the test — even president Lincoln.
To elect a president is one of the most important civic duties an American has. But to go into the debate without even understanding the words used to talk about the candidates makes us all less informed at a time when being informed is all important.
I hope this helps us begin to narrow the debate in a more logical manner.
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on December 28, 2007 10:16 am
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Bigotry, News
Trackback URL:
Comments
11 Responses to “Definitions for 2008 Election: Are YOU Informed?”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“Now, to question if a Mormon is a real Christian or not is not a bigoted question. It is a discussion of the relative aspects of Mormonism that do or do not adhere to general Christian doctrine, one based on theological facts.”
Give me a break! If we were dealing with a theological discussion then there would be merit to this argument. However, the United States of America is not a theocracy. Such religious questions are actually (if not practically and popularly) against the U.S. Constitution. They hold NO recognizable bearing on politics other than to point out to bigots who is “one of them.” As the saying goes, a bigot is a bigot, no matter how much they say otherwise. Wow, I have heard something similar to that before. Don’t you hate it when the shoe is on the other foot?
Such questions are against the Constitution???
What the HELL are you mumbling about, jettboy?
If I may Warner, I think that Jettboy is referring to there being no religious test to run for president. Of course this isn’t what you are talking about, and Jettboy is confused. He seems to think that this part of our founding documents means that “the people” can not take someone’s religion into consideration, or at least not ask questions about it, when considering them for president. Of course this would be impossible to enforce, and more importantly isn’t what the constitution referred to. Of course what it refers to is that no law can keep a person of any religion from running for office. There isn’t anything there about a law keeping people from considering someone’s religion in the decision making process of who they vote for.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that is what Jettboy was referring to.
Hmm. You haven’t been paying attention. The charges of bigotry are not because people ask “Are Mormons Christians?” It *is* bigotry to say “You shouldn’t vote for Romney because he is a Mormon and Mormons aren’t Christian” or “… because Mormons are racists” or “… because Mormons believe ridiculous things” or “… because Mormons are [fill in the blank].”
Better understand the argument before you shoot down a phony version of it.
I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I believe in Jesus Christ and strive to follow his teachings. I testify that Joseph Smith is and always will be the Prophet of the Restoration, and any man who reads my words with an honest heart will be touched by the Spirit of God.
Mr. Huston, you appear to be a very intelligent man. My 1995 edition of Websters New World Dictionary defines bigot as such:
“one who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.”
This dictionary also defines Christian; perhaps yours is different:
“a believer in Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus”
According to this definition, a Christian is anyone who believes “in Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament”. Even if this weren’t an inextricable subject taught liberally by the Church and also by the Book of Mormon, the definition also provides that a “Christian” is “a believer… in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus”, also very much taught in the Church and the Book of Mormon.
You speak of logic. I pray I have used it correctly.
The Mormons certainly count themselves as Christians. I believe that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Wiccans would also count them as Christians, since they accept the New Testament.
However, they also readily agree with claims that they are not orthodox or traditional, and even take pride in them: They accept the Book of Mormon and other revelations and reject most post-apostolic creeds and traditions.
The claims that Mormons are not Christians can be abbreviated: 1) Only traditional Christians can be counted as such, 2) The Mormon version of Christianity is a blasphemous counterfeit, and 3) If Mormons call themselves Christian they are lying.
This seems to be at least a partisan argument, and more theological than political, but partisan theological arguments and political bigotry are unfortunately not mutually exclusive, as almost the whole 16th and 17th century history of Europe demonstrates.
Bentillius,
I am sure that you think your faith believes in Jesus Christ in the orthodox Christian way. Your Church has been doing its best to hide its unChristian ideas for many decades in order to seem more mainstream. It has been so successful at it that many Mormons don’t even know what their Church really believes. You aren’t alone, for sure.
I think the question is not whether Mormons think themselves Christians, but whether most Christians consider Mormons in their fold.
A thoughtful question.
When Martin Luther, John Williams,
and John Wesley all disagreed on many things, doctrinal and practices, with the Catholic Church….were they still Christians? When they and their follows started their own churches, Luthern, Baptist and Methodist…were they still Christians? When they were excommunicated from the Catholic Church, were they still Christians?
All these “reformers” are hailed as Christian icons. Give it a few hundred years and virtually all people will view Joseph Smith as a Christian icon also.
And how do you make your conclusion that “Mormons”, which is the nickname for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, are not “Christians”????
Warner:
Yo stated “your church has been doing its best to hide its unchristian ideas for many decades in order to appear mainstream”. Furthermore you state that “many Mormons don’t even know what their church really believes”.
These are common reactions to someone who finds that what Mormons are taught in church is quite different than what you were told that they were taught. To begin with a common and quite rediculous argument that is commonly brought up against Mormons is that they believe that Christ was created just like you and I ant that Christ was not begotten. You will find the phrase “Only Beggotten Son of the Father” more than 40 times in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and in the Pearl of Great Price. While in the New and Old Testaments you will find the same phrase about 10 times.
We have always taught and always will that Christ is in fact the Only Begotten Son of The Father.
Most mormons from the age of 8 years old have a quite solid understanding of the basic foundations of our doctrine. However, what they are taught differs significantly from what others are told that we are taught.
If we don’t believe and were never taught something that you think we believe it is probably not that we don’t know what we believe it is most likely that you were misinformed about what we believe.
In regards to whether we are real Christians or not based on how our beliefs differ from other denominations I think the onus of proving true christianity should lie not with those who Believe that Christ is the Only Beggotten Son of God as Christ himself stated but with those who have unscripturally assumed the creeds and councils of man and corrupted original Christian doctrine into some wierd “uncomprehensible, uncreate, without passions, parts etc.”.
Christ is the “Only Beggotten Son of the Father”.