Pat Robertson has previously said that being a Mormon should not stand in the way of voting from Romney, and now his CBN takes on the Log Cabin thing.  No news there, what is news is how Andrew Sullivan glories in it.  I wonder if there is anything, from God to politics, that does not, in Andrew Sullivan's mind, rotate around the fact that he is gay?

The WaPo/Newsweek blogalogue that is On Faith wonders if American is a "Christian Nation."  Al Mohler chimes in:

Is America a "Christian nation?" The question is not as simple as might first appear. Better to say that this is a nation whose citizens are overwhelmingly Christian. This is a distinction with a difference.

Talk about mixing religion and politics!  Comparing Obama and Christ?!  Seems to me John Lennon just about got run out of the country for such nonsense some years back.

The Boston Herald "profiles" the LDS Church.  The piece seems designed to emphasize the differences between Mormon and Evangelicals, but it does not seem to exaggerate them.  Lowell do you agree or disagree with me here?  Is this a fair summation?

Lowell:

It's actually pretty good.  A few corrections, from my perspective: 

• Joseph Smith's receipt of the plates that he translated into the Book of Mormon wasn't really the beginning of the Church, but that's a small quibble.  It was one of the most important early events.

• Referring to the Church's "billions of dollars in assets" conjures up an image of opulence and wealth.  In fact, those assets are a complex collection of things.  Tithing money is dedicated 100% to the operations of the Church.  Fast offerings are dedicated 100% to the relief of the needy, or victims of disasters.  The profit-making companies the Church owns pay taxes just like any other enterprise.

• Tithing is not "required."  It is 100% voluntary, although all members are taught that paying it is a commandment from God.  The same is true of monthly fasting and making fast offerings.  As with all commandments, some people follow them, some do not.  No one is ostracized for failure to obey these two.

• Not to be picky, but the Church would never use the term "fundamentalist" to refer to polygamist groups.  To us, "There is no such thing as a 'Mormon Fundamentalist.' It is a contradiction to use the two words together."
  

• "Cold drinks with caffeine are  . . . forbidden."  This is not true, although I believe most devout Mormons try to avoid them.  Even so, I know many devout Mormons who love a Diet Coke and are members in good standing.  Devout members also avoid tea and coffee (along with tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and non-prescription drugs).

Little to do with Romney, but fascinating church/state question.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Because every election needs a bobo doll.  And people think Mormons are irrational….

Full text Romney's Log Cabin letter - finally.  Seems pretty in-line with Evangelicals to me.  It's not like we think homosexuals are sub-human or something.  No promises about marriage, which to my thinking is not some sort of civil right.  Issue done.

Things are getting very testy in re: Romney's conservatism.  This was foreseeable to anybody that looked into it, and from the standpoint of this blog, I am happy to see it because it is NOT about religion.  Now, if Matt Lewis is right and there is a conservative blogosphere backlash isn't this early, and won't that be inoculating for Romney this early?

Lowell:  A slightly partisan note:  The writer is upset that Romney said he was a Independent during the Reagan-Bush era, which ended almost 20 years ago. As my teenage son might say, big whoop.  Reagan himself was a Democrat until a couple of decades before he was elected president as the epitome of conservative Republicanism.

A couple of secular universities are opening "Mormon Studies" departments and one of the leading Godblogs is wondering if "this more of the main-streaming of Mormonism?"  I find that question fascinating - I would think increasing numbers of Mormons is what is "main-streaming" them and anything else is a response to that fact.  Creedal Christianity has, for several decades, been losing its hold on societal mores, and all sorts of other things have risen in the void, including witchcraft. (OK, Wiccan, but I have a hard time telling the difference.)

While this remains a predominantly religious nation, and primarily creedal Christian, I am not sure it is even possible to talk about a "mainstream" anymore.  Or perhaps if there is a mainstream, it is no longer defined theologically, but ethically.  Wouldn't that make modern Mormonism very mainstream?

Lowell  From a purely Mormon perspective, I also find the question fascinating.  If a Constitutionally protected idea or movement is succeeding, what is to be done to stop its progress?  Anything?  Or do the words of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34) have any application here:

Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought . . . . But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

In other words, debate, exhort, preach, teach, testify; but in the end, let people choose.  Don't try to use the political system to suppress or discourage lawful ideas or movements. 

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

RANT MANDATED

The wonkette carries some video of Larry King featuring the new head of the FLDS "endorsing" Romney.  Talk about your "stealth religious attack."  The FLDS is an infamous breakaway sect from the Mormon church and decidely polygamous.  The guy King is interviewing is taking over for Warren Jeffs, who has been arrested for murder.  What possible purpose could King have for the question other than to link Romney and the CJCLDS to this bunch of thieving, polygamous thugs?  No one in King's position can claim ignorance of the situation here.

Would Larry King ask a convicted felon if they are going to vote for Hillary or Obama?  This is absolutely abysmal.  It's partisan journalism at its absolute worst.  It's partisan politics and it's religously bigoted.  Larry King should be off the air.

Lowell:  What's odd about this is that King has historically been quite friendly to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  (Here is a transcript of a prior King interview with the Church's current president, Gordon B. Hinckley.) King's even married to a Mormon woman. (Or he was; I think she was his seventh marriage after six divorces. I will pass on the obvious polygamy joke.)  King may well have lacked any malicious intent; I suspect his idiotic question is the result of his general obtuseness about politics.

The really foolish part of the Wonkette's post is where she refers to this polygamist, who has apparently fled to Canada to avoid arrest, as Romney's "fellow Mormon."  No, Wonkette, there's no relationship between the church Romney belongs to and this polygamous group.  Never has been, never will be.  The polygamists are not Mormons; Romney is.  This is the sort of stealth religious attack we'll see a lot of, since lefty bloggers are not all that fond of precision when they're writing about an evil Republican.

NOW BACK TO OUR REGULAR PROGRAMMING.

Hotline wraps up the Log Cabin thing pretty well.  Via EFM, Jay Sekulow adds some important facts.  Net effect of all of this - Romney gets inoculated early.

An endorsement?

John Mark Reynolds continues defending Christian action in the public square.

Claiming the Reagan legacy.  Comparing Romney and Brownback in this light is almost silly.  Reagan was pretty tight-lipped about his faith, much like Romney.  Brownback, on the other hand ….

Lowell:  Hey, folks, I'm a Reagan Republican but the great man never went to church and his wife was into astrology.  Even so, neither I nor any other religious conservative ever had any qualms about voting for him on the basis of his religious beliefs, whatever they were.

For the record, this is how a cult behaves.  Call me when Mormons act this way.

A Christian and a Muslim concentrate on what they share, not their differences.  What a novel approach - Maybe creedal and Mormon Christians could do the same thing!  OH WAIT! That's what Lowell and I are doing.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

The Romney news over the weekend was dominated by "the gay letter" as it made the NYTimes.  John J. Miller says in The Corner:

I haven't seen the letter … but on first glance the hype factor here seems high.

Well, no one has seen the letter because to date only excerpts have been published - telling, I think. (And probably the root of how it will be explained)  We are not, however, Romney apologists here.  This will be very telling as relates to religion.  Romney's current stance is far more in line with his faith, and mine, than what is reflected in the excerpts so far published.  Romney has some explaining to do and if he does it right he can kill two issue birds with one stone.  Talk about learning through his faith will go a long way with Evangelicals.  As Ann Althouse says:

Is he a skillful candidate? It's a good test for the man.

K-lo agrees on the explaining part, but does not see the religious angle.  Of course, she's Catholic.  I think he'll be fine, but the opposition appears to be forming.  Although, I smell a rat.  We need to dig a little on this one.  This rhetoric level usually indicates more than just politics.  No names or affiliations on their site ….

Lowell:  Well, I did a little digging and found that The Pondering American has already turned up quite a bit of information on RightMarch PAC.  This summary states that this PAC took in $88,075, and managed to give the whopping sum of $3,950 to federal candidates.  Everything else went to vendors, including consulting fees.  The PAC's Federal Elections Commission filings are here, if you have any desire to dig yourself.  You can thank John McCain and Russ Feingold for this sort of nonsense.

And by the way, Dean Barnett writes from first-hand experience about Romney and makes some interesting points about Romney's 1994 comments, including additional information. 

One interesting aspect of this type of "scandal" is the MSM's underlying contempt for politically  conservative religious people.  The assumption is that if Romney said something compassionate or tolerant about the gay community, conservative Evangelicals, Mormons, Fundamentalists, and the like will recoil in horror because they are, after all, knuckle-dragging homophobes.  In that regard, I think the discussion that we will now have about this issue may well be quite illuminating.

Oh, one more thing on this subject.  Is anybody besides me just a tad bit suspicious that this "broke" while the man was in Asia, away from media, and the ability to explain things?  Lowell:  Yes!

The apparent '08 field is quite diverse; which the aforementioned K-Lo thinks speaks to the heart of some of the greatest oratory in our history.  That is unless, of course, we start making "who to vote for" decisions on silly things.

Polling stronger everyday.  Sports analogy: if you can't go undefeated, it's better to do your winning later in the season, especially in the playoffs.

Romney in China.

Romney, definitely NOT McCain.  Whattaya think? - Primary campaign slogan?

Brownback needs to rememebr he will alienate as many as he endears with this kind of talk.  (And stunts like this) I agree with him and all, but smart politics would be a bit more generic - "Religious expression should be encouraged over the holidays, all forms…" something like that.  Lowell:  It will be interesting to see what impact the entrance into the field of such an overtly, vocally religious candidate will have.  In a way, it distracts attention from Romney's religion, since he seldom talks about religion himself. John comes back:  The more I see, the more I think Brownback is not serious about the White House, I think his near candidacy is designed to energize a certain segment of voters on certain issues a la' Jesse Jackson.  However, Lowell is right, there are ripple effects from such actions and in this case they could be to Romney's benefit.

Why Hillary will not run.

John Mark Reynolds continues his series defending religious activity in the public discourse.  This time he is defending Constantine - the first Christian ruler, and then tying it back into the Christian Right.

Polygamy - NOT! a Mormon issue.

Candidates and books.

A number of prospective 2008 presidential candidates are betting that the free publicity that comes with the release of a book can't hurt.

Like a serious candidate needs more publicity.  However, since Romney does not have a book in the offing, maybe there is an opportunity for Lowell and I?

Here's a new approach to conspiracy theories.

Update by Lowell:  Does Jeb Bush prefer Romney?  Will that matter?  Time will tell.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Gov. Romney’s religion may be a hot topic among political pundits, but few Americans (14 percent) know that he is a Mormon.

According to new polling data from Fox which is why I think this is going to backfire on McCain.  It makes him look like the one doing the religiously based shenanigans.

Lowell:  This sounds familiar:

"A lot of this is cultural-not actually based on any religious test," comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman. "The personality and presentation of the candidate matter more than any specific because, in the end, the specific question is: will this person consider my needs or put their own group forward?"

Well, yes . . . . 

Correction: We thought this may be Romney's first religious misstep.   The news report says he met in South Korea with "Unification Minister Lee Jon-seok," which looks a lot like a meeting with a Unification Church ("Moonies") official.  We were mistaken; Romney is not consorting with the cultic. Mr. Lee "is the current South Korean Minister of Unification and chairman of the National Security Council."  He's not a clergyman.  Maybe we can save others from making the same mistake.

Because the south is perceived as "The Bible Belt," it is where Romney is expected to have the biggest religious issues, but he seems to be doing well in 'Bama and Florida.

So What?  Making it even less newsworthy.

If it's not official it ought to be as the staffing continues here and here.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Lowell starts off: Russ Smith, a fairly well-known conservative pundit writing in an alternative newspaper, seems to think The Question is an insurmountable obstacle for Romney. Smith's piece reflects a very shallow understanding of the issue, and concludes, "It's time for the GOP to practice pragmatic politics and rally around McCain, the most electable candidate in the party."  A bit early for that, I think. John adds: The guy is also wrong if he thinks social conservative issues are dead.  He neglects the overwhelming support for defense of marriage propositions, even in the great Democratic switch that was last month.

John continues with more stuff to read:

John McIntyre wonders if the economy won't be the driver for the '08 cycle.  I am not sure Islamic terrorists will let us become quite that somnambulent, something's gonna happen.  But if they don't McIntyre might be right.  Now, name a candidate in either party with better economic credentials than Romney.

The President of Fuller Theological Seminary starts blogging.  Dick Mouw is one of THE leading evangelical proponents of Mormon/Evangelical dialogue and understanding, and has taken quite a bit of heat for it.  This ought to be interesting.  Lowell:  Here is the story of how Mouw upset many Evangelicals, and here is the text of his remarks.  He responds here to Evangelicals who criticized him for his statement.

Interesting reading on religion and society.

Worst idea is columnist history:

Note to Romney: You might not want to hire this guy as your Karl Rove.

Hire who? - you ask.  A BYU PoliSci prof.  No, that wouldn't stoke the 'ol Mormon conspiracy fires at all.  The media and left have cast Rove as the devil incarnate, what would they do with this idea?

More and more of this popping up.  Frankly, with most Evangelicals those are the questions that will really need answering - not where he worships; they are true believers on political stance as much or more than religion.  Lowell:  I think it's telling that even I, a Mormon Romney supporter, am looking for answers to those questions.

NPR tackles the "The Question."  No new information, just weird to hear them handle it….  The quote from the acting head of the National Assoication of Evangelicals sounds to me like it was taken out of context, I have seen nothing that indicates its stand on "The Question" has changed post-Haggard.

Late update from Lowell:  Michael Graham writes in the Boston Globe about The Question.  He begins with an intriguing question:

Does anyone ask Hillary Clinton to describe her underwear?

He concludes:

Yes, it’s true that most evangelicals do not consider Mormons Christians. Yes, many would even classify Mormonism as a cult.

    

But in America today, where religion and faith are under constant media assault, the question evangelical voters are asking isn’t “Christian vs. Jew” or “Methodist vs. Mormon,” but rather “God or no God?” For values voters, the battle is between people who value faith and those who either ignore it or are actively hostile toward it.     

 

Romney is an ally to evangelicals not because he is or isn’t a Christian, but because he’s a conservative who believes in God and takes his faith seriously.

 

Mormonism also benefits from the positive behavior of its members. Mormon teachings . . . may strike evangelicals as a bit loony, but from a lifestyle standpoint, the only different between Mitt Romney and a southern Baptist is that Romney really will turn down a free drink.

Read the whole thing. 

(Graham was interviewed on MSNBC earlier this week; we linked here.)

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »