Does Romney believe the Constitution is a divinely inspired document?
This is what various documents of his Mormon faith teach, which he promised to uphold as a church leader. If so, then can he truly believe in a separation of Church and State? Or would he argue that the separation clause isn't in the Constitution since the Constitution is divinely inspired? If there isn't a separation and it is divinely inspired, then which God was doing the inspiring?
Second, if Romney believes in "continuing revelation," then does he believe in a living constitution? That is, could the Holy Spirit "move" him to desire to call for a ratification of the Constitution? Would his selection of a Supreme Court Justice reflect his belief in a living constitution, or would he call for an originist/strict constructionist? How does this sort of judicial philosophy square philosophically with his understanding of 'continuing revelation'?
Ultimately, does being POTUS mean he has to stop being Mormon at times? Is this possible for him to do, will he be comfortable not being Mormon on all sorts of occasions?
I think this is a pretty crucial line of questioning for our POTUS, as it directly reflects on his role as upholder of the Constitution.
UPDATE: I found this quote from Romney: “They’re either inspired by God or written by brilliant people or perhaps a combination of both.”
***So where is that liberal, atheist media asking follow-up questions? Are our media so theologically ignorant that they don't see a problem with "continuing revelation," the Constitution, and a church leader being asked to uphold two contrasting world-views. This is NOT a Kennedy/Catholic dilemma. This is very different, a direct infusion of religion INTO politics, where one area MUST bow to the other. I hope someone presses him on what appears to be a philosophically untenable situation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
