After reading the commentaries of both Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved concerning the Presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a serious disconnect between biblical truth and reality among many conservative commentators, especially when it comes to religious beliefs.  Both of these gentlemen have come to the defense of Mitt Romney, who is an avowed Mormon, asserting in one way or another that his aberrant religious beliefs, ultimately about truth, do not matter when discussing Presidential leadership in the Whitehouse.  Yet, their reasoning is so flawed with ignorance, equivocation, and pragmatic opining that it makes one wonder what happened along the way that caused them to jump the tracks of rationality.

            For instance, Hugh Hewitt—in an earlier blog of his—wrote an article which carries the same title as a book he is currently peddling, equivocates Romney’s perversion of Christianity—which he refuses to discuss, and is a Mormon tactic borrowed straight out of Freemasonry, by the way—with Barack Obama’s race and Hillary Clinton’s gender.  Hewitt accuses the critics of Romney with “religious bigotry,” assuming that religious heresy is of the same nature as a person’s skin color or gender.  The fallacy of equivocation is obvious, given that Obama’s race and Clinton’s gender are inherently what they are as human beings, as opposed to Romney’s beliefs, which are the product of mental ascent.  In other words, Romney’s beliefs have nothing to do with what he is as a human being.  In fact, thousands of people leave the cult of Mormonism every year when they discover the lies and distortions inherent within it, yet their races and genders do not change!  Hewitt is guilty of comparing apples with oranges, and is in fact guilty of intellectual bigotry himself.

            Michael Medved is no better.  In his most recent blog questioning whether Romney’s Mormonism should disqualify him or not, from being President of the United States, Medved offers some of the most irrational suggestions as a defense of him thus far.  In essence, Medved wants people to “Forget about theology,” forget about the past, and use a pragmatic philosophical outlook on life to determine not only the truth of religious claims, but whether a person is mentally capable of fulfilling such an office as President.  He claims that “Most of the anti-Mormon arguments emphasize the alleged absurdity of LDS doctrine.”  Alleged absurdity?  There is nothing alleged about it when one intelligently understands that Mormons believe that God is an exalted man who lives with a harem of polygamously married women, and is siring “spirit-children” on some planet nigh unto a star called Kolob; that Jesus and Satan are brothers, and then men and women—with enough self-effort—can go on to become gods and goddesses.

And to forget history is to repeat it.  Michael should know that, given his Jewish background.  Or maybe Michael would not mind if another Adolf Hitler rose to power, either, and put him in a concentration camp.  You might gasp and wonder, “Adolf Hitler?”  How does one get from Mitt Romney to Adolf Hitler?  That’s what happens when you discount the past, ignoring the Mormon tyranny that is a part of its history, which is driven by its theology.  Joseph Smith was a megalomaniac, as was Brigham Young.  Mitt Romney lauds Joseph Smith.  And if we accept Medved’s suggestion to forget the past, particularly when Mitt Romney’s ancestral religious past is dark and ugly, then it won’t be long before we repeat it, and that with another tyrant like an Adolf Hitler.

Finally, Medved’s pragmatic suggestion is so much like that found on the Political Left it is almost scary.  Whatever works, in other words, is great, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.  What?  Michael’s disconnect with the almost unbearable hurt that Mormonism has caused the literally thousands, if not millions of lives, is glaring.  Yet, he thinks that as long as Romney has all the outward appearances of peace, joy, and contentment, and as long as he can balance a budget, well then, he must be Presidential material worth considering.  The problem, though, with such thinking is that it is self-refuting.  Why?  Because pragmatism is a kissing-cousin of relativism, which is a worldview divorced from the truth, while hypocritically claiming to embrace and advocate it.  In other words, a pragmatic view based on what works for one person, or one group, does not necessitate that it is either true, or beneficial to anyone else.  It is merely a matter of opinion, and we all know what the definition of an opinion is.

Clearly, there is a significant disconnect among the political media pundits, on both sides of the isle when it comes to Mitt Romney, and that disconnect centers around a lack of knowing biblical truth.  Many of the political pundits that the American populace hears on radio and TV everyday are so biblically illiterate that they will do just about anything to put someone like a Mitt Romney into office.  They might claim that they’re not electing a pastor, but a President, but once again that is merely another display of ignorance that refuses to take into account the religious commitment of the person they are defending.  Mitt Romney is not just another guy with political ambitions, just like Joseph Smith was not just another guy who wanted to be President either.  He is a Mormon, first, and cannot help but bring his Mormon influence to office.  And only those too eager to be naïve and irrational about his Mormonism will look the other way, or provide excuses for it, to detriment of us all.