mitt romney for pastor OR commander in chief: producing tons of questions

I have watched George Stephanopoulos’ show on ABC this morning. I have questions about Romney and many of his ideas/approarches in attempting to become President of the U.S. American empire. My questions? Let’s start with Romney’s idea that we have a separation of church and state, and how it has worked well for us! Yes, Romney did celebrate our well practiced separation of church and state by saying: “…and it has worked well for us!” I’m not convinced! Another difficulty I am having w/ Romney’s interview is how he avoided Stephanopoulos’ questions around the Latter Day Saint/Mormon theology/ doctrine. LDS/Mormon theology and overall doctrine is highly theocratic and patriarchal. This means that both the LDS theology that is lived out and doctrine that is conceptually conceived espouses and practices theocracy: a form of government where a divine power [in this case a strict monotheistic god] governs an earthly human state, either in person or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s) (e.g. church, temple), either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s). Friends, there are difficulties with the reality of the “perceived” separation of church and state. This should be an important piece of the discussion when this country’s constituents cast/rock the vote.

Another important conversation has to be the way in which marriage here in this country is understood. While I am a supporter of Christian marriage [and I recognize this has to be qualified], the “institution” of marriage in this country is not inherently Christian. For this country, in many ways, marriage is a social contract; it is not a moral contract. It is important to remember that we have many different lenses to understand household, coupling, and family. We shouldn’t be attempting to establish public policy that mirrors our own particular religious ideas. Unfortunately, in the marriage/family debate, we are when there is talk about a constitutional emendment that would/will define marriage as a contract between a male person and a female person!

Romney went on to suggest that though once wanting to protect the right for a woman to choose what she will do w/ her body, he now wants to preserve the sanctity of life. What even does this mean? Your anti-choice for women’s bodies, but you want to preserve the sanctity of life; and you will kill humans in a war? There are no inherent connections in these propositions.

There are problems with Romney’s ideology and with his framework in creating and developing policy. If you are a Republican or one that votes Republican in our binary system of voting, please do your research and consider another candidate!

Questions? Comments? Bring it on!