Article VI Blog

Andrew Sullivan is keeping it up, this time, at least on something historically substantive, if not currently. Dean Barnett is all over him, here and here. But we missed the most interesting response, despite linking to it yesterday. Says James Taranto:

OK, we'll admit it: We still look at Andrew Sullivan's Time magazine blog. Up until 33 months ago, we found his stuff generally sensible, if sometimes overwrought. But 2/24 changed everything, and now his blog has become more of a guilty pleasure, something to gawk at morbidly like the site of a horrible accident.

I think that says it all. Sharks jumped, seriousness left behind in the dust.

Lowell adds: I suspect Sullivan's ardor for Romney-bashing will fade. In the meantime, if there was any question as to his current motivation, this Sullivan statement provides the answer:

[The miscegenation question] strikes me as a pertinent issue, because Mitt Romney has set himself up as a guardian of the institution of civil marriage. He certainly wants to prevent me from legally marrying my fiance.

What we have here, folks, is one angry man, and it's clear what he's angry about.

Now for a little fisking of Sullivan's post. He claims Mormon inter-racial marriages were once "taboo." No, they were not; the site Sullivan links to makes that clear. It was the counsel of the church's leaders in or about 1965 that Mormons ought to marry within their own ethnic group. If a Native American wanted to marry an Anglo-Saxon, there was no obstacle to their doing so; Church leaders simply said it was not a good idea. True, African-Americans once did not have the opportunity to marry in the temples, but that ended in 1978. You will find many mixed-race couples in the modern Mormon Church; and the Church's congregations in Africa are experiencing explosive growth. None of this is intended as a defense of Mormonism, but as an effort to inject some facts into Sullivan's rather juvenile yammerings.

EFM responds to the media explosion on "the Question" over the T-day weekend. Sadly, our promised EFM interview is experiencing technical difficulty in transcription. We'll get it up as soon as we can, which may be a while.

K-Lo is wise:

I don't expect people to be freaked by his religion as much as they will be by some of the MSM treatment of it — and religion in general. My guess is that American public's tolerance will trump their tolerance for concerns about a candidate's undergarments.

John Derbyshire, who opposes religion generally based on his perception of irrationality, comments on the irrationality of the "LDS creed." I can't help but giggle a bit at that….

Hotline looks at the Sunday shows and comments on Romney. (at the bottom) Most fascinating, E.J. Dionne from "This Week" on ABC.

People are talking about will evangelicals support a Mormon candidate, a discussion by the way we didn't have when his father, a Mormon ran many, many years ago in 1968 . . . .

He's right, and "Why?" is a great question. Lowell: Perhaps because evangelicals were not politically organized in those days? And because people were generally friendlier to religion?

Romney's more "likable" than Bush. Why were there more Dems in the list than Republicans?

Democrats keep shooting for the Evangelical vote, and they keep aiming wide.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » | Print this post | Email This Post