When I was last in writing class we talked about a woman defending Mitt Romney and his religion as a Mormon. She was quick to defend Romney and Mormonism because she is also a Mormon. Based on this I can’t take her seriously as a nonbiased person in her argument. She gives a brief explanation as to why she thinks Mormonism is a Christian religion and then goes further to saw Romney is like Jesus. This is one thing a Christian knows is that Jesus is perfect so to compare a politician, no matter what message he brings, to Jesus is a mortal sin. But even if I did not know anything about Jesus, Christian religions or Mormonism, I would still be skeptical because she doesn’t give much reason for me to believe her.
Just because she considers her religion to be one thing does not mean that they should be associated as such. If I say that Denver is a European city that doesn’t make it such and even if I say I’m from Denver and that the mayor of Denver reminds me of the mayor of London doesn’t make it true. Mormons are already known for their “out their” ideas and beliefs and I think that is the only thing hurting Romney at this point in the election. That is the reason people are making a big deal out of him being Mormon. Not because they are trying to attack his good beliefs but because of his bad beliefs that are questionable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Your critique of the writer's use of evidence makes sense. I wonder, though, how you might engage the assumptions behind this argument--Given the variety and diversity of Christian beliefs in our country, who gets to define what a Christian is or who gets to claim that faith-based identity? Perhaps questions for further discussion ...
Post a Comment