Article VI Blog

Peggy Noonan on political discourse. She is talking about Coulter and Maher and their ugly utterances last week, but I think there is useful advice for discussing Romney and religion in there too.

Looking at what is happening in South Carolina where they may need to read Noonan's piece. There is so much worth examining in this piece that I will break down into quick bullets.

Use of language. That awful word "cult" and references to Joseph Smith as "nut case." For about the billionth time, I do not agree with Mormon doctrine, but I do not find it necessary to resort to such pejoratives. Nor do I think anyone else should. This seeks to end discussion, not carry it on; it is dismissive, and disrespectful of Mormons as simple human beings. (We may need to remind people about that word cult, here is my series - One — Two — Three - Four)
The conflation of personal life and religion. They are not necessarily the same thing. See the item below - as several Christian leaders seem to understand in this Boston Globe piece.
Whispering campaigns. Is there an uglier form of politics in existence? We need to remind ourselves that if the attack must be whispered, it is likely illegitimate. Consider this column from the Deseret News about the dust up we discussed last week on Romney speaking at Pat Robertson's Regent University. "Think Michael Moore speaking at Utah Valley State College. [paragraph] But unlike UVSC, where students and faculty openly protested hosting the liberal filmmaker in 2004, criticisms at Regent are mostly behind closed doors, according to Vegh."

Lowell: My hope is that people like Gloria Haskins will look like idiots to enough voters that her bigotry will not make a difference in the voting booth.

McCain really does not get it.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who remarried one month after his 1980 divorce, said Friday that the personal lives of White House hopefuls shouldn't become an issue in the 2008 campaign.

Does he forget what we got the last time we ignored the personal life of a presidential candidate? - you know, something about stained dresses and perjury. Many people would accuse me of speaking with a forked tongue on this because I contend religion is irrelevant, and isn't that, after all, personal?

Here's the big difference - Religion is formative of character whilst family life is indicative of it. Let me break that down a little. Religion is one of many factors that teaches us values and molds us, but it is not the only one. There are any number of people of poor character that claim adherence to a religion, just as there are people of good character that are areligious. I would contend that religion makes good character more likely, but it is not an equation.

On the other hand, how a man handles his family affairs tells us about his character. That doesn't necessarily mean divorce = creep, but it does say things like affair = liar. Any person that would cheat on their spouse is willing to both disregard the commitment they made to that spouse and are willing, for at least some period, to lie about it.

If there has been any lesson from the last two occupants of the White House, it is that character matters.

Lowell: Two comments. First, McCain has publicly admitted in the past that he was "the bad guy" in the breakup of his first marriage. Apparently while he was a POW, McCain's first wife (gasp!) aged and gained weight. He admits that after he returned, his eye wandered. Now, people make mistakes, and all Judeo-Christian religious people believe in repentance and forgiveness. But if you're going to run for President of the United States, your life is going to be open to scrutiny. There's just no avoiding it. If Romney's past is so squeaky-clean that he has an advantage in that regard, then good for him. If McCain has some explaining to do, that's just life for a presidential candidate.

Second, I find it quite interesting that McCain says candidates' personal lives should not become an issue, while at the same time he stands silently by as his high-profile public supporters in places like South Carolina trash Romney's religion. In my book, a candidate of character would have disavowed such statements and distanced himself from those supporters. McCain's sphinx-like response says a lot about him.

If you're here, you're internet savvy. If you've made up your mind to support Romney, you might want to join Mitt Links. It's an interesting internet networking tool that is being used by the campaign.

This makes a lot of sense, but sadly I think that boat has left the dock.

The Romney-Kennedy parallel. Yada-yada-yada. What makes this telling interesting is it is written by the Dean of the School of Government at Pat Robertson's university.

And people think Mormons are weird!?

Sometimes, political rumors are just plain false.

No, DUH!

Al Mohler is quoted in Hugh Hewitt's book as having a problem voting for Romney because of his faith. And yet we find him finding common cause with a Rabbi on his blog? We need to talk to this guy….

Speaking of Hugh, he takes on the latest non-story about Romney. DID WE MENTION HUGH"S BOOK HITS THE STORES TODAY?!?!?!?

David Frum wonders if religious freedom can survive gay liberation. He has a heck of a point! Now, here is an interesting ramification. If you have a religious bias against Romney, that is you want to place some limits on religious freedom, you are siding with the gay liberation people. Think about it….

Now Romney's candidacy is causing internecine Mormon squabbling!? It's a cute column, but reveals the real ugly side of some of my creedal Christian brethren.

During one such debate several years ago, I received a letter from a group of Baptist seminary students demanding biblical proof for the LDS stand on caffeine.

I sent them Deuteronomy 25:13 and said, "I don't know how the Lord could possibly make it any clearer." They wrote back that I was "an unserious man" and to enjoy myself in Hell.

To save you the trouble of looking it up, Deut. 25:13 is a prohibition against the use of false measures when selling goods. In other words, the columnist was making a bit of fun of them. I sort of agree with him, if seminary students want to base a debate with the LDS on their stance on caffeine, well, let's just say I'm not sure the columnist was the unserious one. It is the nature of seminary to spend one's time on doctrinal questions of absolutely no import, but what really saddens me is their condemning tone. I'll stop there, you all don't need a creedal, internecine sermon on your hands.

Lowell: The columnist, Robert Kirby, is sort of the Art Buchwald of Utah. One needs to avoid taking Kirby seriously, although he would probably enjoy the joke if someone did. As for caffeinated soft drinks . . . well, it's kind of like the difference of opinion between Orthodox Jews who follow the kashrut (kosher) dietary Jews and those who follow the stricter glatt kosher laws. Some Mormons follow a stricter regimen than others; both those who drink only Sprite and those who drink Diet COke are members in good standing! As for me, I'm a recovering Diet Dr. Pepper fiend and am sticking to diet root beer . . . .

Quote of the week: