Article VI Blog

That the question "Are Mormons Christians?" is showing up in the Godblogosphere is not terribly surprising to me.  But that is is arising in more mainstream discussions is something I find fascinating. (See the last item – Andrew Sullivan started it.)  This is obviously a question we spend a lot of time talking about and thinking about on this blog – here and here would be the most prominent examples.

Because we are a blog that features both a creedal Christian and a Mormon we have had to work to find some sort of middle ground on the issue as reflected in the links above.  When it comes to the Romney campaign, some, more concerned – at least on their blog – with the politics than the religion simply choose to take no stand on the question.  This link and others point out how incredibly emotionally charged the question seems to be and that for some, perhaps more than I anticipated, it is a vital question.  The comments here are another indication of how charged the question is.

There has been much scholarship devoted to this issue.  Some from the Mormon side, some taking an approach similar to this blog, and some from the creedal side.  The latter link produced a torrent of comment, also illustrative of how charged the question can be.  In all honesty, when Lowell and I come up to discussing the question in detail, one can feel the energy rise.

The bottom line, though, is, how does the answer to the question matter in terms of a political discussion or candidate qualifications?  From my study of the discussion surrounding the issue, I would say there are two areas where it appears to matter somehow.  One could be serious and the other is purely bigoted.  Let's start with the latter first.

Some of the discussion seems to be simply a matter of determining if we are somehow "in the same club."  I really don't understand this way of approaching the problem save as an exercise in bigotry – sorting the world into "one of us" and "not one of us" on grounds not related to the issue at hand.  I cannot help but think this is the kind of religious influence on government that the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.  After all, isn't the notion that "only 'one of us' is worth my vote" the very definition of a religious test?

The other area where this question arises is more substantive, but in the end non-differential.  Each person comes with a worldview, explained this way:

We might say that each of us carries a model of the universe inside our heads that tells us what the world is like and how we should live in it. . . . even ordinary people have a set of convictions about how reality functions and how they should live. Because we are made in God's image, we all seek to make sense of life. . . . . The notion that we need such a "map" in the first place grows out of a biblical view of human nature. The Marxist may claim that human behavior is ultimately shaped by economic circumstances; the Freudian attributes everything to repressed sexual instincts; and the behavioral psychologist regards humans as stimulus-response mechanisms. But the Bible teaches that the overriding factor in the choices we make is our ultimate belief or religious commitment. Our lives are shaped by the "god" we worship. . . . the God of Bible or some substitute deity. . . . 

As this explanation reveals, religion plays a terribly important role in the formation of a worldview, but in the end, it is the worldview that will define how we interact with the world around us when it comes to things that are a part of the regular working of our government.  Religion is remarkably unclear on many of the issues of the day, only a worldview born of religion can determine what a religion has to say on such issues.

Thus, when it comes to a discussion like the one this blog addresses, the election of a political candidate and the relationship of religion to that election, the question is really about whether different religions, or different sects within the same religion, produce worldviews that result in different stances on the issues of the day.

Having said that, determining if creedal and Mormon sects are somehow equally "Christian" does not really get to the heart of the matter.  "Christian" means a lot of things including as an adjective to describe a worldview, but as best as I can tell Mormons and creedals are sufficiently close in theological make-up that deciding the question wouldn't tell us much about similarities and differences in their worldviews.

The entire discussion that sparked this post arose when Andrew Sullivan said:

THE CHRISTIANIST CANDIDATE

- In case you were unaware, it's Mitt Romney.

That I think sums this discussion up in a nutshell.  The political opposition cannot tell the difference between us, thus our worldviews must be awfully close, perhaps indistinguishable.

So why are we spending all this time on this question?  I sure hope it's not the "club" thing.

Lowell adds:  I hesitate to add anything, for fear of detracting from John's excellent post.  I'll note simply that the term "Christianist," of which Andrew Sullivan is so fond, is a deeply pejorative label for all politically conservative Christians of any religion, creedal or not, including Evangelicals and Mormons.  It's supposed to be the equivalent of "Islamist," the term widely used to describe the likes of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  In other words, Christianists are as interested in imposing their religious views on others as Islamists are in imposing Sharia law on the world.  People like Sullivan employ that slur with the same recklessness (and malice) involved in the use of "cult' by some anti-Mormon writers.  For Sullivan and the angry secular Left, Mormons and Evangelicals are in the same awful "club," and using the term "Christianist" is a handy way to avoid rational and respectful discussion.  Ann Althouse adds more. Be sure to read the comments.

[tags]Mormon, Evangelical, creedal, non-creedal, Christian, Christianist, Andrew Sullivan, Mitt Romney, politics, election, worldview, religion, words, definitions[/tags]

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

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.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Mark Steyn looks at church-state issues as only he can.  Note that one of his key points as to how the Bush administration is NOT a religious coup of some sort is the religious diversity present in it.

James Taranto "hates" identity politics.  No mention of Mormons or Evangelicals, or even presidential politics in there, but there is a lesson on those matters I think.

Time asks "The Question."  Not much new here save the bluntness with which the CJCLDS is divorcing itself from any campaign.

Some personal insight into the man.  'Bout time Dean spoke up.  Lowell:  I'm a
Romney supporter, so readers may want to take this with a grain or two of salt, but it's always interesting to me when people who have been close to a candidate still admire him.  That seems to be uniformly true of those who have been close to Romney.  "No man is a hero to his valet," it is said; but some men are, and when that happens I like to take note.

McCain and Giuliani still polling out front, but the gang at FOXNews sees things shifting a bit.  Name recognition helps a lot this early in the game, but a lot more counts come election time.

Aligning with Reagan is an excellent idea, but is "becoming" him?  Only Reagan could be Reagan.

Lowell:  True.  The fine line to walk is to learn from Reagan without trying to be him.  I've been reading Team of Rivals, about Lincoln's political genius, and there is much to learn from him as well.  I guess the secret is to see what principles of leadership and government worked for Reagan (or Lincoln) and emulate the principles, rather than the man himself.

A Reuters look at Romney and a run.  What can I say? - it's Reuters.  Lowell:  The reporter managed to put together a piece containing absolutely nothing new.  I guess if you can get someone to pay you for doing that, it's what my son would call a "good gig" . . . . 

David Broder looks at Romney's Mass. term as governor.  I like this piece as it is reasonably impartial, despite the headline, and no mention of religion at all.

This piece looks at '08 and casts a very broad net regarding the possibles.  It does, however, have one thing absolutely right – this one counts more than some.

If the Jews, why not the Mormons?

Dobson appears to lighten up just a little:

KING: Then it would be — could you support a Mormon? Could you support Mitt Romney, who would agree with all five of those?

DOBSON: It is very early to make that judgment.

KING: Would it be…

(CROSSTALK)

DOBSON: I would have to look very carefully at Mitt Romney.

KING: Is there a detraction if he's a Mormon, I mean, in your mind?

DOBSON: I think there…

KING: Mormons are Christian.

DOBSON: I think there will be for many evangelicals, and so the question is: Could he get the nomination? I really don't know. And the question will be: Compared to what?

At least he leaves the door cracked this time instead of slamming it shut.  (HT: EFM)

AP, via CNN on a Romney run.  To their credit, they handle the "Mormon question" pretty well, which is treat it as a piece of political trivia.  Interestingly, this piece does echo the new leftie meme on Romney – "Rich guy."  We hear this all the time about Republicans, but I am wondering if combined with "Mormon" it might not be more effective than usual, at least with some sectors of the more ignorant and bigoted public?

Some analysis out of Seattle.

Looniness from the left.  This time courtesy PuffHo Huffpo.  Warren Jeffs deserves every ounce of venom this guy can muster.  He even admits early in the post that there is no connnection between FLDS and CJCLDS, and yet he manages a shot at Romney, Bush, and even Reid.  Amazing.  Lowell:  I tend to lose confidence in a political analyst who, when writing about a candidate, can't even get the candidate's name right . . . .

Speaking of leftie rants, this one, while incredibly critical of Bush and Romney, makes one heck of a point:

From the Evangelical Right point-of-view, a President Mitt Romney in 2008 would be, effectively, a third term for George Bush

So tell me again why Evangelicals are going to have a problem voting for Romney?

Joe Carter grants humor and hope for '08.  Here's a hint:

The reason the right side of the blogosphere didn’t fret is because they knew Karl Rove's Ultimate Secret: The fastest way to destroy the Democratic Party is to put the Democrats in charge.

Truth hurts.

Queue up for yours now!  Word has it some of your favorite bloggers have a mention or two.

Looking at one of the outsider possibilities – Huckabee.  We try not to be personal on this blog and keep it newsy, but I have get a little personal with this guy.  Every story on him mentions his weight loss – who cares?  Why is it important to an election?  Here's some insight into fatties – some lose weight quietly and it's a good thing, some rally a bunch of support somehow and the weight comes back on because after a while they no longer have the adulation and support.  (Trust me I know about this, I have doubled his figure for weight loss in the last 3 years) That's a pretty lousy reason to run for President.  (It's a pretty lousy reason to blog too, so if you ever hear from me about it again, slap me upside the head.)

Here's an opinion piece from the Dallas Morning News on Romney and "The Question" The only thing really new in the piece is the ancedotal framing of the story around a couple, husband being Evangelical and wife being Mormon. It's a bit inconclusive, but that is, I think, the point.

Lowell: A few additional observations:

1.  I rarely pay much attention to Eleanor Clift, but couldn't help noticing her piece today writing off Romney's position on gay marriage as simple political opportunism.  A classic MSM lefty with little insight into what so many Americans believe, Clift cannot see that the gay marriage issue touches on principles that resonate widely and involve much more than gay rights.  Many religous voters– Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Mormon, Baptist– think matters involving our deepest, most cherished beliefs about society's most important institutions should almost never be decided by courts.  That's a matter of deep principle, not opportunism; and it's probably the biggest piece of common ground in existence for that group of voters.

2. Andrew Sullivan writes of "The Mormon who might just go all the way."  Andrew, who's very upset with anyone who does not agree with him 100% on gay rights issues, can't seem to get past religious issues:

Personally, I have no interest in someone’s private faith in his or her pursuit of public office. Romney, to my mind, should be judged on his public record. The trouble is: this is not what the religious right has come to expect in a leader. They look for a religious figure in a political leader, “one of them”.

I other words, "I wouldn't write about this on my own; they're making me do it."  Well, at least he didn't use the word "Christianist" this time.  Look for that word to become increasingly part of popular usage by the Left, with the complicity of the MSM, who love the specious idea that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are the results of excessive religiosity.

Update from Lowell:  I hadn't seen this.  I'm not sure what is more remarkable about Sullivan's work here– the outright silliness of obessing about someone's underwear, or the clear malice he displays toward Romney and Mormons generally.  As you'll see below, Sullivan's post generated a lot of heat (not much light).  That seems to have encouraged Sullivan to act like an angry adolescent who's delighted to have struck a nerve. He continues today with some more ridicule.  (By the way, please don't accept the South Park clips as correct depictions of history or Mormon beliefs.  That I even have to say that speaks volumes about where we've come to on this subject.)

Sullivan lamely attempts a defense of his behavior here, saying he "meant no offense."  Really? The revealing money quote:

And none of this would be relevant at all, if the Republicans did not now base their politics on explicitly religious appeals. You wanna play by the rules of theoconservatism? Then deal with the consequences.  

Any questions about Sullivan's motivations?

Note:  This is the work of someone on the left.  As I've said many times, they will be much more vile on the religion issue than any of the small but committed group of anti-Mormon Evangelicals will be.  Watch for those folks to gleefully link to Sullivan's posts and offer more "information."  If you check the trackback links on Sullivan's blog you'll see that has started already.  Dean Barnett summarizes:

The fact that Andrew would casually engage in mocking a major American religion and its practitioners while perhaps not even realizing that he’s doing so gives us a good indication of where his head is these days. It’s becoming increasingly ironic that the great Orwell quote, “To see what is in front of one’s nose is a constant struggle,” sits atop Andrew’s blog. As he has surrendered his analytical skills to his passions and his rages, Andrew doubtlessly doesn’t understand how much he continues to humiliate himself.

John adds to Lowell's update: This is quite unbecoming for me to say this, and perhaps not appropriate to my professed faith, but Andrew Sullivan is just an ass.  This is playing by the rules of "theoconservatism"?  I don't think so — this is ridicule and unbecoming of anyone who wishes to be taken seriously in a pubic discussion on matters important and serious.  In the last few days Sullivan has evidenced himself as more in the class of South Park,  The Daily Show and The Colbert Report than as a serious commenter on serious matters.  This is clearly Daily Kos territory.  It is not coincidental that he is doing this on heels of Romney's actions regarding same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and with all sympathy to the personal agony that may cause Sullivan, it's no excuse.  Public action by politicians always cause someone personal agony on some level, yet we work to maintain civility.

Were he a blogger with less than Time behind him he would be quickly shuffled off to the hinterlands of the blogosphere.  I am torn about whether he deserves response and refuation or is to be simply ignored.  Sadly the sheer volume of his blog makes ignoring him almost impossible, even if his content warrants it.

Back to Lowell:

3.  Law professor Ann Althouse goes off a bit on Sulivan's piece and dives into the Romney-religion issue in a big way.  The entire piece– links, comments, and all– is well worth the read.  (Warning:  If you follow all the links, you'll see some very offensive anti-Mormon material.)  Althouse herself comments:

The attack on Romney is different. This is an attempt to weaken him by saying he is a member of a particular group and laying out the reasons why people should feel revulsion toward that group. That is a terrible, terrible thing.

Sounds kind of like what we've been saying here.

Update 2:  Prof. Althouse continues the discussion here.  The comments are illustrative of the mindset of those who think making fun of sacred things is important political discourse.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Romney stakes out the conservative territory.  Things are heating up.  Romney distinguishes himself from McCain and Giuliani on ideological grounds, with some fairly sharp comments about McCain and same-sex marriage.  Also — note what looks like the beginning of a fascinating dance between Romney and Newt Gingrich.

Speaking of conservative credentials – does the Claremont Institute count?  Lowell: I'm not sure anyone counts much more than they do.

Meanwhile Captain Ed looks at Brownback.  He's taking Gingrich seriously.  Lowell:  If Brownback becomes an active candidate, the discussions here are going to get even more interesting.  Brownback is, in essence, a huge believer in using government to do God's work.  There's lots to debate about that.

While another member of the Minnesota contingent is taking Brownback seriously.  The Fraters guys are smarter than they act, but this strikes me as a terribly shallow view.  Lowell:  It's actually quite shocking. "I'm with the 43%."  Really?  John adds: I do not know the Fraters guys well, but did one small project (having enormous fun at Hugh Hewitt's expense) with them about a year ago.  My guess is the statement is shorthand for "Not electable because…" as opposed to "Would never vote…," but they do leave it unclear.

A Romney quickie profile.  Forbes puts in a little more effort.

Evangelicals and the GOP.  Bottom line: you want the GOP nod, you gotta appeal to the Evangelical vote.

A very thorough bit of political analysis concerning the GOP field.  Lowell:  Again, the Gingrich-Romney dance: 

[O]ver on Fox News Sunday, conservatives got an ’08 assessment from their intellectual guru, Newt Gingrich. “There is a yearning for a clearer voice of conservatism,” Gingrich said, after listing his problems with McCain. “And I think that Mitt Romney has an opportunity to fill that.”

An interesting thread from The Corner on Mormons and Evangelicals – One – Two – Three – Four – Five - Six.  Here is how it starts:

Andrew Sullivan just declared Romney to be the "Christianist" candidate.

TOLD YOU! – the left cannot tell the difference between Mormons and Evangelicals.  Brings to mind an old adage: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  The thread does contain some examples of people that have not thought things through thoroughly just yet, but time will tell.  It's one thing to rail about Mormon faith and another thing altogether when you come to understand the alternatives are John McCain or Hillary Clinton.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Been trying to do some reading lately on the history of religion in American politics and governance.  This desire led me to the book you see here, and can purchase here, if you really want to.

Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen is a very left-leaning analysis of the thinking on religion by six of the founders – Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton.  The first six chapters of the book, one per founder, are devoted to examining the writings of these men as relates to religion in politics and governance.  The later half of the book is devoted to examining contemporary writings, from mostly the French Enlightenment, but also the English, that "undoubtedly" had great affect on the founders.  Let me put it to you this way, the first part is reasonable history, even if it indulges in a bit of what I was taught in seminary is "proof-texting" (deciding a point and searching for material to make it rather than letting the totality of the material decide the point) but the latter half is pure anti-religious diatribe.

Now having said that, there is a great deal of value in the book and I could discuss it a great length, but will try to make some salient points in a few bullets.

• The term "Christian Nation" is a hugely loaded one meaning different things to different people.  America is clearly not a "Christian Nation" in any sense that the nations of Europe were at the time of the founding.  That is to say, the government of those "Christian nations" obtained their legitimacy and authority from the church.  In the US, government clearly and wholly obtains those things from the people, with a diversity of religious persuasions.
• The idea of "separation" is deeply rooted in our national make-up.  The "separation of church and state" was meant in parallel with the separation of powers written into the Constitution.  The authority and power of the church was to be separate from that of the government – see bullet above.  That does not mean the church has no voice in the political process, only that it has no political power apart from what it gains in that process.
• The founders, some claiming Christianity, some not, were largely not Evangelicals in any sense that looks like an Evangelical would look today.  There really was no such thing then.  The roots of that movement indeed trace to the Second Great Awakening, around 1800, but it has modified greatly since that time.  The church has changed significantly in the ensuing years.
• Few analyses of these issues I have read take into account how much the church has changed.  In the earliest days of the nation, churches were large, monolithic organization with structures to unite and control congregations.  This enabled them to accumulate enormous power if they wished.  Such churches exist today, but they are largely on the wane.  Evangelicals tend to operate in individual congregations that may come together on a convention type basis, but lack the real control mechanisms of the old-line churches.  This means the political action of churches today is largely very different than it would have been then.
• Despite the founders' desire to limit the political power of the church, there was a widespread acceptance of a prevailing "ethos" throughout the nation.  There was further acknowledgement that this ethos was reflective of the basic Christian ethos, which is reflective of the Jewish ethos.  There was debate as to whether religion was necessary to maintain this ethos, but there was little debate about the nature and strictures of the ethos itself.  Some have called this a "civil religion" – that is to say a religoin largely devoid of theological, but not ethical, content while generally, but not universlly, acknowledging the supernatural in some ill-defined sense.

My point is that I think in some ways both sides of this discussion take things a bit too far.  On the far right there are some that would border on the dreaded "theocracy."  Governmental and eccesiastical authority are intended to be separate, the use of religious tests of various sorts, personally and publicly would be an example of bringing these two spheres too close.  Many on the far left seem to fear the combining of these spheres so deeply that they desire the eradication of religion from the public square, not simply its limitation.

Many of the founders doubted the necessity of religion to maintain the common ethos, and yet, history has, I think, proven the point - as religion has largely become the preserver and holder of that ethos when many in society are working to erase it.  (Something Pascal seems to have foretold.) The founders were, above all, men of observation, analysis, and conclusion.  I have little doubt that when confronted with many of the questions we find ourselves confronted with today they would have welcomed a religious voice or voices in the discussion – they did at the founding.

I think a minority religion candidate, provided it is a candidate that holds the prevailing ethos, provides a nice solution to this overarching political problem.  It takes the discussion off the authority of religion and places it on the questions of the ethos itself where it clearly belongs.  By all means we should allow our religions to increase our conviction about many issues, but we cannot rely on the authority of the religion when it comes to debating those issues in the public square.

Lowell adds:  Bravo to John for a fine and thought-provoking post.  For those interested in the Mormon perspective on these issues, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes God "established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [He]raised up unto this very purpose."  In other words, Mormons believe the Constitution was divinely inspired, and that whether or not the Founders were perfect, or even Christian, they were acting as instruments in the hands of God. Also, an important official statement on Church members' political involvement is here.  It dates from 1978, but it's still on the Church web site, and it certainly reflects the teaching and culture I have experienced as a Church member. The oft-quoted official Church statement on political neutrality is here. 

I doubt that Evangelicals (or any other branch of creedal Christianity) have any problem with these views, which are central to the tradition out of which Mitt Romney comes.

[tags]religion, politics, governance, the Founders, books, reading, Mormons, Evangelicals, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Constitution, Mitt Romney, Pascal, separation of church and state [/tags] 

Posted in Book Reviews, Issues, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Polling - Not as bad as you might think, despite a higher than other polls for a "will not vote for a Mormon" number, consider:

Currently, just 19% of Likely Voters are able to identify Romney as the Mormon candidate from a list of six potential Presidential candidates.

and he has a 41% "don't know" on favorable/unfavorable polling.  Lots of room to manuever here.  But of course, none of that shows up before the middle of the story.

Lowell:  I'm a Political Science major, and one of the few really useful things that discipline teaches is how to read polls.  (I was even a door-to-door pollster in college.)  I don't know the questions or the data used in this poll, but one principle leaps to mind:  If a poll's results seem wildly counter-intuitive, start asking questions.  Here's one:  Do we really think almost half of Americans cannot see themselves voting for a Mormon?  We will be looking more closely at this poll in the days ahead.

It's good to know that the people opposing Romney's continuing gay-marriage efforts in Mass. are such fine upstanding citizens.

Bush discusses religious freedom.  So does the Pope.  Says the Pope:

An adequate respect for the right to religious freedom implicates, therefore, the engagement of civil power to “create conditions favourable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will"

When we VOTE, we "engage civil power."  If we decide to vote based on the religious affiliation of a candidate, don't you think we create UNfavorable conditions for "fostering religious life" for at least some religions?

Mark Steyn analyzes Republican divisions.  I think the best '08 presidential candidate is going to appeal to both "sub-parties."  Lowell:  Steyn says:

Someone in the GOP needs to do what Ronald Reagan did so brilliantly a quarter-century ago:reconcile the big challenges abroad with a small-government philosophy at home. The House and the Senate will not return to Republican hands until they do.

So looking at the field, who's that candidate?  Giuliani?  Well no.  McCain?  Strong on foreign policy, but small-government?  Not reliably so, if at all.  Romney?  Well, this is not a partisan blog, so we won't go there. 

Captain Ed looks at blogging and elections.

FOXNews surveys the field.

Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council comments on FOXNews on "The Question."

LATE-BREAKING UPDATE FROM JOHN: WaPo stealth attack?  Nah, couldn't be, they're the un-biased MSM., and I never engage in sarcasm.  K-Lo provides some balance.

One more update from Lowell:  Until today I had missed this post on Evangelicals for Mitt.  I really consider it a must-read for anyone interested in understanding Mormon views about Jesus Christ.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post