Hugh Hewitt says I can't oppose Mitt Romney just because he is a Mormon

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2007/02/17/a_mormon_in_the_white_house

Hugh Hewitt is a well known talk-show host on the Salem network. Some would call him a "shill" for the Republican establishment, like Michael Medved (also on Salem), but I will refrain from doing that.

Implicit in Hugh's statements is the idea that true political views can arise from other than true theology. The question here for Christians is, or should be, not whether a Mormon should be elected, but how we evaluate the suitability of any candidate (Hugh doesn't say if it's okay for Mormons to support Romney just because he is a Mormon).

Another, perhaps more fundamental question is, who is Hugh Hewitt to tell me what I can and cannot consider in making such an evaluation. His comparison between opposing Ms Rodham because she is a woman and opposing Romney because he is a Mormon is both faulty and wrong.

Mormonism is a belief system: it has specific views about the nature of man and his ultimate end. It, therefore, like all belief systems has a philosophy of government. Being a female is not a belief system - it is a gender.

Further, scripture is clear that it is a sign of God's judgement when women bear rule (during President Clinton's term, some evangelical leaders announced that God would judge American because of "the Clintons" - a more scriptural view would have been that "the Clintons" were God's judgement on America).

So, as a Christian, I can oppose Hilary just because she is a woman. As a free man, I can oppose any candidate for any reason I want.

Hugh and those of his ilk will have to come up with something better than simply saying that I can't.