Today’s Reading List – January 8, 2007 | Article VI Blog

Fund-raising matters. We don't usually take potshots on this blog, but I can't help to reflect on the role the McCain-Feingold Act played in driving this figures up, and everything that goes with that.

While we're apologetically in the potshot mode, I had the privilege of dining over the weekend with some retired military types that served with John McCain. I promised not to say much . . . . However, while all rightly acknowledge his heroism, and the circumstances are entirely different, let's just say their affection for the man rises to about the same level as the Swiftys' did for Kerry.

You know, if those people over at the Corner got off thier high-horse and read this blog from time to time, they might avoid some problems. Ramesh Ponnuru stepped in a huge pile Friday and K-Lo was more than willing to let a couple of readers smear him with it. We figured this out a long time ago - I think there is something to be said for being in the trenches trying to make things work somehow, like blogging with someone of that other faith, rather than just talking about them.

The every insightful John Mark Reynolds holds forth on some of the recent religious attacks from the left.

K-Lo cracks wise about idenitity politics.

STOP THE PRESSES! – Susan Estrich gets one absolutely right. Obviously, she is trying to save the left from itself.

Lowell: I like her closer:

Of course a person's religion affects their values, which in turn shape and influence their leadership. Most of us don't walk around with an internal wall between our religious selves and our public lives. To do so would itself represent a denial of the social justice values that our religion teaches. But there is a difference between that sort of influence and the idea that we do our politics as a way of enforcing our religion, which would mean that only someone who believes what most of us do is qualified to lead. Can it be that private religious beliefs count for so much? And what does that say, not about Romney, but about us?

The view from Colorado, leading to a possible conclusion. The piece cites Amy Sullivan's Washington Monthly piece as the beginning of The Question. Sullivan presents herself as centrist but is pretty left-leaning when it comes to wanting to exclude religious voices in politics, particularly Evangelical voices. I'm beginnng the think this issue was a broadside from the left in its entirety. The voices on the right arguing against Romney's faith are just too marginalized to matter. The American Spectator seems to agree, arguing this whole thing is an attack on religion in politics in general, not just Mormonism.

Salt Lake City NPR interviews Damon Linker. I just love psuedo-intellectualism. There is no there, there. They sound so much more important and thoughtful than they really are. Here's a little insight into Evangelicals. Linker says Catholics are the primary thinkers behind Evangelical political involvement. I hate to break it to him, but many Evangelicals, certainly the most numerous Baptists, are almost as convinced Catholics are going to hell as they are Mormons. The guy is clueless.

Friends matter. Some more than others.

A pretty decent overview piece of the issue from a small newspaper syndicate.

A little ruminating by Lowell:

We've noticed a distinct uptick in Romney-related articles, many of them on The Question. Damon Linker's New Republic cover story continues to reverberate. As John notes above, James Antle, The American Spectator's Associate Editor, develops a meme that we've been suggesting for a long time: To the extent Romney's getting hit for his religion, that's coming from the left:

You don't have to accept the tenets of Mormonism or any other religion to see that the standards Linker and Weisberg want to impose would in effect disqualify a lot of Americans outside the LDS church. . . . many religious traditions seem like strange superstitions to people on the outside. That doesn't just apply to the many young-earth creationists Weisberg would vote against, but also an even larger number of Americans who believe in things like the virgin birth or the resurrection.

. . . there are plenty of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews who . . . believe at least some of the miraculous events their religious texts describe actually occurred. Should they all be excluded from positions of authority unless they liberalize their theological views?

Maybe it would be better to judge their commitment to a free political order by looking at their behavior instead of trying to square that commitment with outsiders' interpretations of their theology. . . .

The evidence may not matter to some liberal secularists. They have proven they are not resistant to making faith-based political arguments themselves.

Meanwhile, a bit more on the continuing on-line debate at The New Republic. (Subscription required.) The participants are Linker himself and Richard Lyman Bushman, a Mormon and professor emeritus of history at Columbia. It's interesting stuff. Bushman's latest entry notes:

In evaluating the political implications of Mormon beliefs, you should use real facts about real events, not theoretical possibilities. Have Mormon leaders actually used their influence to manipulate politicians in the interest of world domination? What reason is there to think they have this on their minds? The reason Mormons are likely to find your analysis a phantasm is that we rarely, if ever, speculate about the world when the millennium comes. This is simply not on the agenda of active Mormon concerns, and it is certainly not a "core" belief. If anything, Mormons draw on the tradition that holds that many religions will flourish after the coming of Christ–a kind of American-style tolerance of all faiths. Mormons conscientiously carry the gospel to the world, but I have never heard a Mormon forecast political domination, much less collaboration with the United States government. Are you aware of Church leaders discussing such plans? No.

John notes: Richard Lyman Bushman is right: Linker needs to consider Mormon history and reality as opposed to theological possibility.

If you are a subscriber we recommend the comments section to the debate.

The Prowler reports that Mike Huckabee might join the Romney campaign– not just as an advisor, but as chairman of the exploratory committee. We'll believe this when we see it, but if true it's a home run for Romney: Huckabee's well known as a Baptist minister and chairman of the Southern Governor's Association.

John: The rumor broke Friday, no denials found to date, tends to lend credence. That would put the evangelical credentials on overload.

Saturday, NPR's Weekend Edition ran a story entitled "Mitt Romney's Candidacy Puts Mormons in Spotlight." I took notes on John Ydstie's interview with John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, and found it very fair but quite basic. You can listen here.

Late update by Lowell: The New Republic is becoming an interesting center-left battleground in the war over The Question. In today's on-line edition John B. Judis analyzes both Jacob Weisberg's and Damon Linker's New Republic posts. Arguing that "a Mormon president is nothing to fear," Weisberg concludes:

Certainly, there is a bridge between religion and politics that politicians cannot safely cross. And that consists in bringing particular, sectarian beliefs openly to bear on major national issues. George W. Bush is often accused of doing so, but he has actually has been fairly careful not to–for instance, in his decision on stem-cell research. It's a presumption of American politics that politicians will not cross this bridge. We've now given this benefit of a doubt to Catholics and Jews. It's time to give it to Mormons like Harry Reid and Mitt Romney.

Share and Enjoy: