Bob Jones III Endorses Romney
Mitt Romney just scored a key Christian right endorsement in South Carolina, that of Bob Jones University president Bob Jones III.
Jones said the endorsement "is all about beating Hillary," and also preventing Rudy Giuliani from getting the nomination. "If it turns out to be Giuliani and Hillary, we've got two pro-choice candidates, and that would be a disaster," Jones said — a sign that a recent outreach effort by Romney supporter Mark DeMoss, made along those same two lines, might be working.
But don't go thinking that Jones' support means he's softened his view of Mormonism, which he considers to be a cult. Along with the endorsement, Jones also made such comments as:
• "What is the alternative, Hillary's lack of religion or an erroneous religion?"
• "As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism. But I'm not voting for a preacher. I'm voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs."
• "I'd be very concerned if he tried to make it appear in any of his statements that Mormonism is a Christian denomination of some sort. It isn't. There's a theological gulf that can't be bridged."
Update: For some context, Jones previously wrote in 2000, "The diminution of evangelistic enterprise to cults which call themselves Christian, including Catholicism and Mormonism, is frightening."
Romney is a dream for dems.
Hillary would beat him silly. Romney will get Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska, and Wyoming perhaps.. OK and TX.. not much else though
October 17, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Romney is really piling up Religious Right support. Just yesterday he some other good endorsements.
demwinger, I used to think so as well... but I don't know... he's starting to vaguely scare me and what if Rudy has less potential after all??
October 17, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It occurs to me that if the religious right-wing wacko crowd is to retain anything like their current primacy in Republican politics, they must deny Republicans the presidency as punishment for nominating a candidate who does not espouse a return to back-alley abortions in America. If nominated, Giuliani must lose, lose badly and daring defiance of religious right-wing extremism must seen as the primary reason for his loss. Any other outcome and the power of the religious right to dictate terms to Republicans would be broken. They would be back to being just another influential lobby among many.
October 17, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Romney has been framing himself as a "change" candidate. If Clinton gets the nomination and faces Romney then we might have the bizarre scenario of having the Rep candidate able run on change even after 8 years of a disastrous Rep presidency. Imagine Romney telling our candidate she or he voted for the Iraq War and he didn't, but now that we are there. . . pottery barn, etc.
Granted, I'm not at all convinced Romney is a threat to defeat our nominee whomever it is. Present polls notwithstanding, Romney strikes me as less of a clown than Giuliani so I'm guessing Romney would come through the campaign better.
October 17, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remain convinced that the best Republican in the field is Clinton. She has their business views and middle of the road social purpose. I'm hoping that her fascination with force and power, while less than the other Republicans, will be her undoing.
Guiliani poses all the same issues that Clinton does. Fairly moderate socially with a fascist plutocratic heart. He is half as smart as his female counterpart and mostly interested in his own pious puffery.
A Clinton/Guilani match-up would present only a dearth of choice.
Romney is a super slick salesman. He LIES out both sides of his mouth and believes in the monent that the lies is God's truth. Good looking, always smiling and baritone is appearance would confuse the masses. His religion is not the issue . . . His soul is absent and he is only in this for himself. The folk at Blow Job University are being lead astray by the Morningstar hisself. Your gut reaction is to listen and retch at the same time. While those of the 'religious right' may be drawn to his appearence of faith, the general population are horrified by his lack to even pretend to have integrity.
October 17, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Live by a single issue, die by a single issue.
Go ahead, Christian right, tear apart your Faustian bargain with the capitalist/libertarian wing of the GOP and see how much influence you have then.
October 17, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Mitt Romney's faith is cult based, but then again, Bob Jones, III's is as well.
'nuff said.
October 17, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a pretty offensive guy, generally.
This is a rather disingenuous statement, given that Romney has already done so:
"I'd be very concerned if he tried to make it appear in any of his statements that Mormonism is a Christian denomination of some sort. It isn't. There's a theological gulf that can't be bridged."
October 17, 2007 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question. Can Romney really in good faith accept the endorsement Bob Jones III considering that Jones is on record as considering Mormonism to be a cult?
Doesn’t he then become a man without conviction if he won’t stand up for his faith?
October 17, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney likes to present a family friendly image of himself and his LDS religion. I am not trying to discourage anyone from voting for Romney – that is a personal choice. And, while I am sure Romney genuinely considers his church to have “family values”, there is another sad side to the LDS “family values” story.
Here is my family’s experience with the “family values” LDS church.
Our daughter joined the LDS church and was later married in an LDS temple. We, along with her entire immediate and extended family were excluded from the wedding ceremony by policy of the LDS Church. Virtual strangers were present, but not her mother, father, grandparent or siblings. None of the people who have loved and supported her all her life were permitted by the LDS Church to be present. A bitter experience that broke our hearts.
After a lifetime of expressing unconditional love and support in all the tangible and intangible ways only a mother can; I was judged "unworthy" and not allowed to be present at the marriage ceremony of my own child because it took place inside an LDS temple. This is a terrible and hurtful policy of the LDS church.
The LDS church’s exclusionary policy extends to church members who are considered “unworthy” in some way. Several years ago, a friend was excluded from his daughter’s wedding because he had fallen behind in his tithing. In other words, a father (and life-long member of the LDS church) was denied permission to be present at the marriage of his daughter because he owed the church money.
A simple solution would be for couples with non-member or “unworthy” family members to be married in a ceremony outside of the temple and then be “sealed” inside the temple later. This would allow for both an inclusive ceremony and the sacred rite. However, LDS couples living in the US are actively discouraged from considering this option and those who do are penalized by church policy requiring them to wait one year to be sealed in the temple. . (I refer you to the church publication Ensign, February 2005). Further, it has been my observation that couples who still choose this option are demeaned by church leaders and other members as being somehow “less than faithful”.
However, this waiting period is not church policy in the UK, France, Germany, Japan and many other countries. Church policy there allows couples to marry in a ceremony outside the temple and to be sealed in the temple on the same day or another day of their choice. They are not required to wait the one year period. Even in the United States, couples who do not live within an easy day’s drive of a temple are permitted to marry in their hometown and then travel to a temple to be sealed. Again, they are not penalized by a one year waiting period.
Clearly, church doctrine permits this option.
If the LDS church is unwilling to allow non-LDS family and friends to be present at temple marriages (and I don’t think they should be forced to), they should at least eliminate the one year waiting period altogether. This would allow for a more inclusive ceremony and would be consistent with its own policy in other countries and other areas of the US.
If LDS church leaders are serious about doing their part to bridge the religious divide between themselves and other religions and honest about their “family values” PR they must change their cruel and unnecessary policy. It is simply time for the “pro-family” LDS church to stop coercing couples into breaking the hearts of those who love them most.
October 17, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of people are blogging faith-related details in this political race. Mormonism and Christianity are not the issues. Last time I checked, our forefathers created America with religious diversity as the centerpiece. Instead of praising Bob Jones for this TRUE separation of church and state, as usual, opponents of BJU are simply using this medium to smear the name of Bob Jones. I don't know a person that has met the man that claims him to be an unkind person. I guess you can't say anything in America now that is politically uncorrect (but you can talk forever about nothing). If you perceive something to be the truth and cowardice to speaking it, YOU are the unloving person, not Bob Jones who simply says what he believes. It would also be nice if you could screan comments here that think BJU is an acronym for filth, but I don't think BJ students know enough about 'gutter' language to care. Thank God for that!
February 11, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink