Today’s Reading List – March 2, 2007 | Article VI Blog

We don't usually do straight political stuff here, not our expertise, but some things cannot be left uncommented upon. John McCain during his big announcement-before-the-announcement appearance on David Letterman said American lives have been "wasted" in Iraq. This from our military hero candidate?!?!? He tried to apologize today. But as was the case yesterday with the "Romney's religion is NOT fair game" story, the bell, as they say, has been rung. Plausible deniability and claims of tongue slips buy you a lot in this world, but some comments are beyond apology. American lives in pursuit of American policy ARE NEVER wasted. You want to take a shot at the current administration, fine, but aim those shots carefully, very carefully.

Lowell: The comments of reliably liberal Newsweek writer Jonathan Alter this week are timely:

In recent years, the word apology has reverted in politics to its original meaning in Greek, which is "defense." . . . Exhibit A is McCain, whose career-enhancing apologies are legion. A partial list includes apologizing for making a "confession" tape during his captivity by the North Vietnamese; for committing adultery during his first marriage; for his role in the Keating Five savings-and-loan scandal; for a nasty joke about Chelsea Clinton; for comparing Newt Gingrich's popularity to Jeffrey Dahmer's, and, during the 2000 campaign, for calling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance." . . .

But McCain's reputation for using contrition to charm his way out of trouble might be catching up with him. When ABC News asked Vice President Cheney last week about McCain's comments that Donald Rumsfeld was "perhaps the worst secretary of Defense ever," Cheney replied archly: "John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld."

Ouch!

Speaking of yesterday and McCain's attempt to declare religion off limits. You'll recall we said:

Sadly, I expect the stuff that has been spreading in South Carolina and elsewhere to continue.

Well, today we were greeted with a story out of South Carolina:

Anonymous mailings critical of GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, on the eve of what has become an all-important Spartanburg straw poll, have raised the specter of a long, nasty battle between now and the 2008 S.C. Republican primary.

[...]

A second piece was sent via electronic mail from the address “upstaterepublican@gmail.com.” It said it was from “Martin W.” and attacked Romney’s faith.

The e-mail is headlined: “Mitt Romney has a family secret he doesn’t want you to know.”

It says: “Those dark suspicions you hide deep inside yourself about Mormonism are trying to tell you something. Trust your instincts! The light of truth will burn through the smoke and mirrors of Mitt Romney’s movie star looks and crafty words!”

This is the downside of the Internet. It makes these sort of tactics just too easy. We've seen them before. During the 2000 campaign I received a number of similar emails about W, only in that case they were designed to make me think W was a cross between Billy Graham and the Pope – urban legend kind of stuff. But this is the first time I have ever seen anyone called a liar because of their faith. You can say Romney's faith is wrong; you can, if you must, say that his faith guarantees his eternal damnation – such are religious statements – but how can you call him a liar without evidence? And when you do so anonymously, you only put the lie to the charge.

Lowell: There is much to say about this story. Most disgusting is the effort to play off the ignorance and fears of voters. It's an old, tried and true bigot's tool. And where, oh where, is John McCain's denunciation of these slimy tactics? John says: Guliani's too for that matter.

Theology and political thinking lay a very odd angle. Bill Simon talked to K-Lo about Rudy and said

Could the thrice-married legal-abortion advocate who marched in gay-pride parades have a problem with conservative Catholics — who would probably prefer that the Republican party’s first Catholic presidential nominee not have these distinctions? Stressing that he was speaking for himself and not the presidential candidate, Simon quipped: “As a Catholic, I am glad that there is forgiveness in our Church.”

One of K-Lo's reader's had an interesting take. But here is what I am wondering, is forgiveness only extended to Catholics? I could be in serious trouble . . . .

Lowell: There is a difference between forgiveness and trust: Christians are certainly required to forgive past wrongs, but not necessarily to place the wrongdoer in a position of trust!

I first ran into "The Top Ten Mormon Facts" at a blog that writes about the reformed protestant theology I essentially hold, and I did not think much of it. As I understand it, with the possible exception of the handshake thing, they are accurate, if uncomplimentary, reflections of Mormon belief. (Lowell?) For a blog about theology to draw theological distinctions without further comment struck me as legitimate. But then it gets weird. I find the blog where I first encountered it, took it from here without attribution. And then a leftie used it as ammunition against us creedals headlining his post referring to it "Christianists on Mormons." I have contended all along, The Question is going to reflect as badly on us creedals as it does on anyone else.

We know that most Evangelical leadership has said Romney's faith should not be an issue, but they have remained non-committal beyond that. I am beginning to think we need more. If Evangelicals do not actively involve themselves in this, defending Romney against all such attack, even while retaining the ability to vote for another, and Romney loses, the left will paint it as religious bigotry. We will be delegitimized, not just by the left as we already are, but in the great "undecided" which is where elections are decided.

Lowell: The blog post John refers to is 90% anti-Mormon claptrap. The author is clearly bigoted and either twists most of the doctrines listed beyond recognition, or presents them in a ridiculous manner. Perhaps most important, the beliefs are not presented in anything close to a respectful manner. Shouldn't that be a clue to the trustworthiness of the piece? Just remember my first rule of understanding a religion that is not one's own: Do not ask that religion's critics what its adherents believe; ask the faith's believers.

At the risk of dignifying the anti-Mormon attack post, here's just one example. The author states that in the eternal world, exalted Mormon women "will spend eternity in full submission to their god-husband." This will be news to my wife. We believe that men and women who receive the greatest blessings in the life to come will be equal eternal partners. There is no doubt of this. Notably, the linked post's only interpretive sources are anti-Mormon writers. In contrast, anyone who wants to read what a current member of the Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles recently taught to BYU students on the role of women will find those teachings here. An excerpt:

There are those who suggest that males are favored of the Lord because they are ordained to hold the priesthood. Anyone who believes this does not understand the great plan of happiness. The . . . natures of men and women were specified by God Himself, and it is simply not within His character to diminish the roles and responsibilities of any of His children.

As President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained, “The Lord offers to his daughters every spiritual gift and blessing that can be obtained by his sons.” . . . All of us, men and women alike, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and are entitled to personal revelation. We may all take upon us the Lord’s name, become sons and daughters of Christ . . . and achieve exaltation in the celestial kingdom. These spiritual blessings are available to men and women alike, according to their faithfulness and their effort to receive them.

On a separate subject, here is an interesting bit of analysis from Charles W. Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government, at Pat Robertson's Regent University. He begins with this:

Will history repeat itself? Can Mitt Romney do for Mormons what Jack Kennedy did for Catholics? To do so, Romney must negate America’s anti-Mormon prejudice, especially among evangelical Christians. Some parallels suggest that he could.

Finally, you just have to love a guy that thinks positive.