Today’s Reading List – October 9, 2006
Is the Christian Coalition moderating? One Evangelical blogger I respect thinks so. I think they are just trying to salvage something by trying to broaden their constiuency, as they have been seriously on the wane for the last several years.
Some church/state stuff. The debate in England is greatly complicated because there is an actual state religion. In Australia it appears to move from complicated to ugly. Meanwhile, I find this humorous – the NYTimes seems upset that the iron curtain between church and state that it has helped to erect blocks travel in BOTH directions.
any effort to malign Romney because of his faith will create a climate of intolerance that may hurt McCain as well. In addition, this kind of intolerance will hurt the GOP in 2008.
Speaking of the MSM, actual reason from the LATimes. Although I must confess they use an excessively narrow definition of "evangelical" and their understanding of Mormonism is a bit thin – they seem to get it right. Wonders never cease.
Lowell adds: I wouldn't give the Times too much credit, because this piece is by Gregory Rodriguez, a syndicated columnist. I am sure any Times unsigned editorial would be predictably anti-religion, except for any comments about left-leaning religious organizations.
This is a cautionary rant aimed at Evangelicals. It's from deeply inside "Godblog" world, but I think it reflective of my concern that too close a knitting of relgion and politics harms religion as much or more than politics. The question – Is demanding that a candidate share your faith too close a knitting? I certainly think so.
Lowell: To the extent this view is widely held, it is another area of common ground between Mormons and evangelicals. We Mormons have long believed that although we should try to have a responsible, positive effect on government. Mormons are encouraged by their leaders to
study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully and then vote for those they believe will most nearly carry out their ideas of good government. Latter-day Saints are under special obligation to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are "wise," "good," and "honest."
But we also strongly believe that our church's mission is spiritual, not secular, and that we do more to improve conditions in the world generally by preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ than anything else. In fact, as noted just below in this post, we believe that America will be safe from destruction only if its people– or at least a large portion of them– serve Jesus Christ. That sounds like common ground, doesn't it?
This stuff sort of troubles me. Political tolerance results from erasing distinction, not measuring it. Measuring "tolerance" simply exagerates distinction. This is difficult in matters of relgion because there are valid and legtimate distinctions – but unless those distinctions affect the political issues somehow who cares?
Not entirely sure why Romney is singled out here. It's about the Massachusetts governor's race, and while the Romney connection is legit, the mention seems to be pure attack stuff. A bit unsavory for a major newspaper blog.
Romney to visit Detroit to discuss racial relations. Too bad Mormons and Evangelicals can't pull something like that together.
Speaking of Romney's home turf – his makes no sense to me. They contend that if his hand-picked successor in MA loses this election it will harm his '08 chances. Romney's election in that bluest of blue states marks him as exceptional, the failure of the next Republican, even with Romney's help, simply affirms that exceptionalism.
Speaking of bizarro analysis – this one's a hoot.
Apparently (It's a third hand report) radio commentator Michael Medved thinks Romney is the guy. As a strong voice of the growing presence of Jews in the Republican party and conservatism in general, Medved may represnet a signficiant shift in usual political equations inside the party. Here's a fascinating question we may need to keep an eye on – Is waning Evangelical power in the party creating an opportunity for Romney, or is Romney building a successful power base around the hardcore (read "won't vote for a Mormon") Evangelicals and contributing to, if not causing, that decline?
Lowell: I have long believed (and I think John agrees) that Evangelicals have more to lose than anyone else involved in the "Does Romney's religion matter?" debate. Consider: If a significant sub-group within the Evangelical leadership withholds support from Romney because of his faith, or is cool toward his candidacy for the same reason, they stand to lose credibility no matter what happens. If he wins, they look impotent; if he loses, they look small-minded and disloyal to the conservative cause. Either way, they will be made to look like they are meddling in politics for improper reasons. (The news media, of course, will greatly magnify all these negative perceptions.) I hope people with influence within Evangelical political circles are taking a hard look at the downside of playing a Romney candidacy wrong.
Lowell – this one is for you. [Ed. note: Lowell's on vacation as I write this so his response here may not be rapid as usual, but keep your eyes peeled] Questions I have – Is the utterance by Joseph Smith that is quoted a "prophecy" or simply a statement? I am unaware of any mention of the US Constitution in Mormon scripture. The utterance was made at a time when the CJCLDS was involved in a constitutional battle as concerns polygamy, given that that is a settled issue, is the statement valid any longer? Why is it up to Romney to answer that question? – Shouldn't it be up to the church?
Lowell: First, hello from Maui. It's paradise here. Now, as to that Philocrites post: There is nothing new here. Mormons do believe that America "is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ . . . ." That could be seen as controversial. But that's a religious belief, and it's not appropriate for reporters to be asking Romney about it. Mormons also believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God, which is also a controversial notion. That's not an appropriate question for reporters either. John's right – it's not up to Romney to explain Mormon beliefs, even if they are related to the United States. There are plenty of LDS Church spokesmen who can comment on such matters. A couple of other points about the linked blog post: (1) It is by Chris Walton, a self-described "post-Mormon liberal Christian Unitarian Universalist," a "devout Mormon" who "experienced a 'deconversion' of sorts." He is now "executive editor of UU World, the quarterly magazine of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations." That explains his obvious familiarity with Mormon doctrine, and it may explain his attitude toward both Romney and Mormonism. (2) Actually, Mormons do have specific beliefs about the U.S. Constitution, as noted here. Our scriptures teach that the Constitution was divinely inspired, and that the Framers were men raised up by God for the "very purpose" of bringing the Constitution forth. Joseph Smith often taught this, and the teaching was not limited to any defense of polygamy (a practice that was not widely known during Joseph Smith's life anyway). Polygamy's over, but we our belief in the Constitution's divinely-inspired origin continues. Technorati Tags: Mormon, Evangelical, Joseph Smith, Constitution, Chris Walton, Unitarian, Philocrites, conservative, Republican, Christian Coalition, Gregory Rodriguez, Michael Medved
Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post