Article VI Blog

MyDD is one of the most liberal, shrilly liberal, blogs out there.  And yet

Will America ever elect a Mormon president? …. If they know what's good for them.

I am struck by the fact that what Lowell and I are doing here is defending the truly liberal position.  So much has happened to the conservative and liberal labels in my lifetime.

Speaking of "liberals," the inevitable blog "Mormons Against Romney" demonstrate something quite interesting with this video presentation.  The unsurprisingly anti-Romney piece ends "Vote Democrat."  That says that 1) the Dems are very afraid of Romney that they would target him so directly now, and 2) That this group clearly understand the proper relationship of religion and politics, but are not the least bit adverse to use religious labels to advance their political agenda.  In other words they violate their understanding.  Demostrating once again, the real problem here is the left, not Evangelical/Mormon squabbling.

Look, if you are for Fred Thompson, then let's talk politics, but now not only are we trying to decide if LDS is a "worthy" religion, we are questioning the religious credentials of our own.  EFM has clarified in a long string of posts.  Folks we are on very dangerous ground here.  This extends beyond a mere "religious test" all the way into a "genuine religious test."  Talk about setting yourself up as judge, jury and executioner!

Lowell:  My thoughts on this here.

Some interesting historical perspective.  And a little more.

The Question, Kennedy, and the courts — Lots of good background stuff here.

Boy, it sounds like there are plenty of stupid people to go around in this story.  Someone, somewhere, will undoubtedly use that as evidence of "Mormon cultishness" although I can't find any evidence of anything other than a guy that claims persecution.  Lowell, any comment?

Lowell:  There's not much to say about this.  The "joke," or play on words, that the school teacher used is one I've been hearing all my life, and really derives from the tendency of BYU students (and LDS people generally) to marry at a young age.  For people who are familiar with LDS culture, the reactions, overreactions, and counter-overreactions in this story are truly bizarre.

The thing about this story is that it has flashed across the wires faster than any story remotely related to this blog since it started.  In less than 24 hours I found it in several hundred outlets, that's amazing for an "odd" piece.  Why?  Of course, Mormon is hot and this is "evidence" of Mormon "weirdness."

These two links represent something fairly unsavory on the part of the MSM.  Stories that would normally be purely local, or even completely unworthy are now going to get all sorts of national attention.  It's a way to attack Romney without ever mentioning his name.  Mormons are different, this cannot be denied, but different is simply that, different, no judgment good or bad need be applied.  This is bigotry at its most insidious.  Like the claims of "different musculature" in blacks that swirled as civil rights really took hold in this country, people are going to be grabbing at straws to justify their prejudices.  It's a crying shame the press is low enough to feed them.  Or they will examine The Question as a mean of exploring them.

Lowell:  I actually did not mind the last article linked, from the Palm Beach Post, which seemed basically informative.  The Utah story is the kind of thing that shows up in the Salt Lake Tribune all the time.  The local jousting over the LDS Church is just part of life there, and Salt Lake Citizens who are not members of the Church just love to make fun of LDS symbols.  John's right — as those stories about provincial squabbles are picked up by the national media, both sides are just going to look strange or petty or both.

A little off topic strategy talk:

Is it just me, or is this "money primary" stuff getting just a bit silly?

And, the best thing about the left is they cannot keep their stories straight.  The most effective attack on Romney to date, not that it has been that effective, has been the "flip-flop" thing.  So, liberals decide to be disappointed because he has actually changed his views.  (HT: Instapundit)  You have got to love that.

Lowell adds:  It seems that liberals are upset when a candidate changes his views only when the change goes in a conservative direction.  Al Gore moved from pro-life to pro-choice, but no one seems to be accusing him of flip-flopping.

Another more political topic:  This op-ed piece makes the unconvincing argument that because "defeating Islamic radicals has become a priority for religious conservatives," such voters will overlook McCain's and Giuliani's voting records because of those candidates' strong anti-jihadist positions.  The writer can't sustain his burden of proof.  The most he can argue is that religious conservatives won't stay home on election day if a Giuliani is running against a Hillary Clinton. I'll buy that, but I'm not persuaded that religious conservatives would vote for a Giuliani over a Romney or a Thompson based solely on that issue.

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

More of our continuing efforts to make the information we have accumulated in this blog accessible to our readers.

 October 3, 2006 – James Dobson appears on Laura Ingraham.  I later defend my contention at length.

 October 25, 2006 – We link to a Boston Globe piece about a "Mormon network" and the blog "Ankle Biting Pundits" swallowing of the grossly over-inflated minor impropriety.

October 26, 2006 - We look a little deeper.  That same day, Lowell takes down ABP's Patrick Hynes a notch or two.

October 30, 2006 – last installment in this discussion, things turn pretty ugly.

November 2, 2006 – Romney meets with high level Evangelcals.

November 16, 2006 – Hugh Hewitt tackles the word "cult" on the radio.

November 27, 2006 – James Dobson on Larry King.

November 29, 2006 – Our first peek at what was going to be in Hugh Hewitt's book.

December 1, 2006 – Jerry Falwell says Romney's religion is not an issue.

December 12, 2006 – Larry King does something very stupid.

December 18, 2006 – Anderson Cooper and Geroge Will put their two cents in.

December 22, 2006 – Jacob Weisberg's now infamous piece, likely the most bigoted to date - makes it's appearance at Slate.  One is forced to wonder about the timing here, as Christmas weekend begins.

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

Bruce Wilson writes that Romney should be forthcoming about his faith; "guard against misinformation defining his faith."  Wrong, wrong, and wrong.  That's the CJCLDS' job.  Romney is running for president of the United States.  Mr. Wilson is described as a "Utah-based columnist."  Could he be a misguided member of the LDS seeking legitimacy from a presidential candidate?  Lowell, do you know?

Lowell:  I don't think so.  Here's Bruce Wilson's blog, which tells more about him.  The few posts I've reviewed seem to be quite thoughtful.  I think he's simply got an opinion about what Romney should do that we disagree with.  The one Romney-related post I saw it not Romney-friendly.

Ellen Goodman talks about religion and politics and The Question and says absolutely nothing.

Guiana sees it as all about identity politics.  Actually, that's what America seeks to overcome.

Too funny not to link.  (For the movie-impaired, Thompson delivered that line with great alacrity in The Hunt For Red October.)

Joyce Krawiec writing at The Conservative Voice comes at it straight and with both barrels blazing.

Disclaimer, I am not a Mormon nor am I endorsing Mitt Romney. I am simply saying that when someone steps forward and proclaims his faith in Jesus Christ and “walks the walk” as well as “talks the talk,” he deserves our respect.

 

The mainstream media and the secularists are just loving it. They have us doing their job for them. They will bear any burden, pay any price, climb any mountain, etc. to prevent religious people from gaining power. Example, George Bush proclaimed his faith and they are still sulking and trying to destroy him. Why would we join in that game?

 

I am a Christian and a staunch conservative, a person’s faith matters greatly to me. I believe that we can’t separate our public and private life. We are what we are and character does matter. Having said that, I would prefer a conservative secularist to a liberal Christian.

Doesn't come much plainer, or much more right-on-the-nose than that!

Giuliani is rapidly developing problems with Evangelicals while Romney is solving them.

The NYTimes with a sneak attack on Romney.  The Rocky Anderson thing is news, but that "Culture of Obedience" crack in the headline, even though it is a quotation is designed to play specifically into the cult fears of many about the CJCLDS.  When Anderson says it, it is in the context of the nation, but in the headline it is specifically linked to Utah, which means Mormons.  This is below the belt stuff.  It's not a coincidence that Anderson made this move or it made the news, right now.

Barone does the numbers.

Lowell linked to this whopper yesterday, but I need to comment, since it is really from my side of the street.  I am sorely tempted to take this apart scripturally and doctrinally, but she is a child and such a brutal fisking would hurt more than help.  This is, sadly, a common attitude amongst the immature in faith.  Nothing she contends to be "doctrinally unsound" actually proclaims Mormon doctrine as correct; these are simple acts by people reaching out to Mormons in love, understanding, and grace.  It is an attempt to build a bridge instead of a wall.  Only the immature or small-minded can object to such an effort.

Wishful thinking?  We traced this outlet to Donald Wildmon before.  His organization officially denied opposition to Romney based on faith, but that's because by rule of law his organization can't deal in candidates.  Wildmon, like the young lady above, would condemn without grace – that is evident in most of his activity.  The "experts" quoted have a great deal of vested interest in Romney losing, and the more a story like this gets out, the more they think they can have that happen.  Sadly, however, to do so using religion as the tool is to strike at both Romney and religious voices in general, but that, I think, is the ultimate aim.  We cannot fall for it.

Meanwhile on the opposite end of the spectrum, voting for him because he is a Mormon is not the brightest of ideas either.

I had no idea barcodes were invented by Mormons!?

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

There was an amazing dearth of news related to the topics of this blog yesterday.  The only real news was Romney's interview on Hugh Hewitt.  Hugh and the governor seemed to agree with us about the lack of news:

HH: Now yesterday, Politico ran a story, Politico.com on lawyers for Romney, a gathering at D.C.’s Hogan and Hartson. And I saw on the host committee the name Jay Sekulow, one of the great Evangelical attorneys in America. Has Jay signed on with you?

 

MR: Jay has signed on with me. He is a great advisor. As you know, he is very close to Pat Robertson and Mark DeMoss, and his support, on a whole series of legal issues, and making sure people understand the truth on my positions, has been a great support to me. He’s gathered a number of Evangelical leaders to sit down with me, with my wife Ann, actually with my son, who also visited Liberty University. So Jay is a great supporter.

 

HH: Now does that mean along with…you mentioned the DeMoss endorsement, Mark DeMoss, a big figure in Evangelical circles, that the Mormon problem that we discussed at length for the book is in fact shrinking?

 

MR: Yeah, I think so. Among the leaders of the Evangelical Christian movement, I have heard time and again that of course Mormon theology is going to be different than that of Evangelical Christians. But they say look, we’re not electing a pastor-in-chief, we’re electing somebody to help run the country. And as long as that person’s values are our values, and that person’s position on issues are our positions on issues, then we’re going to support him. So you know, I read that in some cases, Jim Dobson for instance, he’s saying he would not vote for Mayor Giuliani or Senator McCain, and he’s keeping an open mind with regards to me, at least at this point. That’s encouraging to me. I think these folks are going to look beyond a particular brand of religion, and look instead at the values of the person. And I think as people look at me and my wife, the fact that we’ve been married 38 years today, that we have five kids, ten grandkids, and look at their lives as well, you’ll see that our values are as American as you’ll find anywhere in the country. [Emphasis added.]

I hate to disagree with two such notable lights on this issue, but while "shrinking" is technically accurate, it's not shrinking all that much.  Opposition, based on The Question, from evangelical circles has always been mild and it has shaken out from these circles for quite a while now.  The left; however, is entrenched on this matter, and while they may be temporarily quiescent, they are far from done.  We are in for much more from the Weisbergs of the world.

It is also important to note that some in evangelical circles, such as Al Mohler as cited in Hugh's book, are firmly entrenched in opposition to a Mormon candidate.  At the moment they show no signs of organizing that opposition, but the murmering will remain.  Then there is the "whispering" out of South Carolina….

Lowell adds:  I suppose this blog and its supportive readers would be among those who are "firmly entrenched in opposition to a Mormon candidate."  Wow.  (HT:  Nutmeggers for Mitt.)

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

In our continuing efforts to organize the blog for new readers and research purposes, we give you the Best of the Reading List for the third quarter of '06. 

July 15-16, 2006 – we see what appears to be the actual strategy emerge for the first time.

July 31, 2006 – Falwell says Romney's faith not an issue.

August 11, 2008 – John Mark Reynolds shines forth for the first time.  We later reprinted his piece in total.

August 18, 2006 – Via the Boston Globe. we look at Romney's giving months before the NYTimes tries to make hay of it. (March '07)

August 23,2006 – We quote Fred Barnes and wonder if The Question is real or a press-driven creation. 

August 30, 2006 – Romney appears with Evangelical luminaries.

Septermber 27, 2006 – We tackle the first Al Mohler hour on The Question.  The next day we respond a bit more.

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

Rumor – one can hope it is true.  Noonan's not just conservative, but a well-regarded religious conservative.

You know, when you read stuff like this, I am reminded that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  It was necessary to call Stalin an ally to beat Hitler.  Even if you think Mormons are satanic (THEY'RE NOT! But roll with me for a minute here) they are a far cry better that what the left will bring us.  The left simply cannot tell the difference between creedals and Mormons, and if we allow our theological differences to divide us politically we will give the left opportunity to silence us both.

Sometimes, I think this religion issue is just getting silly, but it turns out there is something sillier.

Lowell:  Well, those WaPo writers have lots of column inches to fill.  The pressure to find something to write about must be unbearable . . . .

OK, This is an utter cheap shot.  Beliefnet reports:

One out of every six dollars raised last year by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney came from the predominantly Mormon state of Utah, highlighting the relationship between the former Massachusetts governor and the Mormon church.

What relationship precisely?  Donations from a community do not indicate a formal relationship of any sort, simply a better response to what a candidate is doing from that community.  Was there fundraising activity by the church or affiliated church agencies?  NO – we've been through that.

Almost a year ago we looked at the fact that some of Romney's leading supporters were Mormons and predicted that it could be used as a basis to make a "religious conspiracy" case.  I wonder what percentage of donations W. got were from Evangelicals?  Did that mean there was an evangelical conspiracy?

That Mormons are responsive to the Romney campaign is neither astonishing nor sinister.  Stories like this exist to create the appearance of malfeasance where none exists.

Lowell:  It would have been better to say, "highlighting the strong support for the former Massachusetts governor in predominantly Mormon communities."  That would have been accurate and would have avoided the embarrassingly provincial language that Beliefnet actually used.

Gustav Niebuhr on anti-Catholic bias and bigotry:

In a democracy that encodes freedom of speech alongside free exercise of religion in its first, fundamental statement of liberty, some people are just going to act on their urge to sneer at another's faith. That's their freedom.

But when such attacks become truly venomous, and especially when they take place out in the open, in public venues, it's really up to the rest of us to condemn them for what they are and to do so in the name of a civil society whose health we all should value.

AMEN!

Guliani's "family problems" continue to play in the news.  Some are trying to cast the Romney/Guliani choice as "pick your evil."  As we said last week these two things cannot be grouped together as simply "private matters."  Religion is about ideas and beliefs that may or may not translate into action, or even different actions in different people holding the same beliefs.  Religion is formative of character to varying levels in varying individuals, but not defining.

Family life, on the other hand, is action, deeds done, and is therefore indicative of character.   We unquestionably learn something about people from how they behave in their family settings.  People can change and people can improve, but such change and improvement will be evident in many ways.  Somethings are out of a candidate's hands (for example, a candidate that has turned over a new family leaf may remain estranged from children of a prior marriage because those children may not have, as of yet, undergone similar improvement) but efforts to hide or privatize the current family situation certainly indicates to me that no new leaf has been turned.

The later link here quotes Romney indirectly from a Monday Fox and Friends appearance:

In response to a question, Romney said the American people will look more at an individual's character and vision than religion.

Nothing tells me more about a candidate's character than how he handles his, or her, family.

Late update from Lowell:  Jeff Jacoby's comment in today's Boston Globe is right on point with John's argument above:

A man who publicly castigates an adulterous president while secretly carrying on an affair of his own — as Gingrich did in 1998 — may be a hypocrite, but he has not undermined the public code that condemns adultery and celebrates marital faithfulness. By contrast, a man who flaunts his infidelity and goes out of his way to publicly humiliate his wife — as Giuliani did in 2000 — has behaved far more destructively. He has not just violated society's moral guidelines: He has subverted them. There are saints and sinners in every political camp, and no party has a monopoly on 'family values.' When the spotlight was on Clinton's indiscretions, that was something too many Republicans tended to forget.

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post