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

According to Erick Erickson at RedState, Lowell and I, and a whole lot of other people, do not get it. This is the same Erickson that was taken to task by Hugh Hewitt and us last week concerning his review of Hewitt's book. Erickson seems to think that criticism of Dobson last week was unwarranted.

But you people who are so outraged by James Dobson need to suck it up and get over it. Your outrage over Dobson goes directly to my frustration with Hugh Hewitt — instead of dealing with the issue, you want to make the issue out of bounds.

Mr. Erickson seems to forget the Constitution, which places severe boundaries on religion in political discussion, and it is thinking like his that is the reason that religion keeps losing what influence it has in politics. The point is, under our system of government, religion is not authoritative. This means that stances at which we arrive on political issues, even if we personally arrive there by religious thinking, must be argued on secular grounds to carry the day. "God said abortion is wrong" will never, ever win a court case (not to mention in the court of public opinion) and is in fact Constitutionally prohibited from serving as the basis for a court decision.

Thus, when it comes to picking a candidate, one must do so based, in part at least, on that candidate's alignment with one's viewpoint on issues, and his persuasiveness on same, regardless of whether he got there using religious thought, or secular.

One contention that Erickson makes is particularly immature, following immediately on the heels of the pull quote above:

Folks, that is what the left does, not what the right does.

Not at all. The left works to halt the religious voice from even speaking; the right, on the other hand, attempts to bring the religious voice in a mature and effective manner, which means we must speak in secular terms, not religious ones. And despite Erickson's contentions to the contrary, bigtory is a real thing, it has a definition. The left uses the charge as a nullifier, the right uses it as a prod to form more articulate, more mature arguments. There is a huge different.

Lowell adds:

Erickson seems to be fighting hard to avoid the clear implications of his words. Consider these:

Dobson wants a Christian to be his nominee and he, like me, is really frustrated that so many of the candidates in the race are Christian in name only. And I'm sure he is also frustrated that one of the front runners is not even a Christian. [Emphasis added.]

Let's see; I wonder to whom he might be referring? Must be that non-Christian, Romney. No, wait, Romney is a Christian, but not a creedal, or orthodox Christian. It's all about terminology, isn't it? Of course, once we get into terminology and definitions, we are deeply into religious doctrine and theology, and we find ourselves . . . doing what? Choosing candidates based on whether we agree with their religious views. If Erickson is going to come right out and say that he is "really frustrated" that one of the leading candidates does not subscribe to his particular brand of Christianity, then Erickson might as well say that in his mind, the primary qualification for a presidential candidate is to be an Evangelical Christian, and that it's a black mark against a candidate– something that "frustrates" Erickson– if the candidate is a non-creedal Christian. I mean, let's get the debate out in the open!

(Incidentally, as I understand the views of Fred Thompson's denomination, the Church of Christ, they do not believe in any creeds at all, but rely wholly on the Bible. Unless I'm mistaken, that makes Thompson a non-Christian in Erickson's and Dobson's view.)

Erickson fails to follow the first rule of holes and keeps digging:

Some of you, I realize, are hitting the brakes here. Yeah, yeah, I know Fred was baptized, Rudy and Sam are Catholic, etc. This goes to the heart of the problem that so many evangelicals have — there are lots of people wanting to call themselves Christians who are not actually Christ followers. "Christian" is the acceptable terminology for a secular world. Lots of people say they are, but there are actually not as many who actually, you know, follow Christ. . . . the key difference between a nominal Christian and a Christ following Christian, i.e. a real Christian, is that the former shows his colors by the inactive pursuit of his faith and the latter shows his colors by the active pursuit of his faith. Fred Thompson, I think Dobson is suggesting, falls into the former category.

This just means that Erickson and those who agree with him distinguish between those who profess Christianity and those who actually follow Christ. But what does "follow Christ" mean? Romney presumably is engaged in the "active pursuit of his faith" and thus follows Christ, or tries to do so (more about that in a moment). But Erickson, presumably, thinks Romney is actively pursuing the wrong faith, and is thus a non-Christian. Do you see the rabbit-hole Erickson invites us to jump into?

But Erickson also finds Fred Thompson wanting, because the former senator is not actively pursuing his faith. How does Erickson know that? Is he keeping track of Thompson's Sunday School attendance? Do we really want to go down that road?

Erickson seems to suggest that Evangelical Christians should support candidates who are actively pursuing an approved version of Evangelical Christianity. Once again, Erickson's approach requires evaluation of a candidate's views on specific religious beliefs. If that's not bigotry, it's knocking at the front door of bigotry.

Here's a blogger that seems to agree with Lowell.

Is this funny? It should be, and yet there are just too many ignorant people out there who will not understand the absurdity. Lowell: Well, I laughed.

Lowell, is this true? Do all Mormons really know each other?

Lowell: Yes, it's true. All 12 million of us. Our secret ability to know so many people arises from the magical properties of Jell-O.

More creedals are lining up behind the Mormon. Things are popping that way in Iowa too.

I have no idea how this now nearly 3-week old piece escaped our attention, but it should not have. It is from the NYSun and it is a rather hard-hitting examination of The Question, and it's conclusion is not nice to Evangelicals. The Anti-Defamation League tends to see a bogeyman under ever bushel, but in this piece, they seem right on:

For the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, there is already concern about the way the faith is being discussed. "I think it is disturbing and distressing the way Mormon religion is being written and talked about in the context of the election," Mr. Foxman said. "There is a looseness to it and almost a disrespect of it that if it were applied to Catholicism or to Judaism, we would find it offensive."

And if electoral politics treat religion in an ugly fashion, it will be important for religious and interfaith leaders to follow Kennedy's tenet on religion. "It will be incumbent on people of good will to stand up and say this is unacceptable," Mr. Foxman said.

That last statement of Foxman is precisely the point we were trying to make about James Dobson last week. Dobson's careful parsing of his statements aside, it is incumbent on him, as a leader for religious voice in politics to help define and set appropriate boundaries for the discussion. The haphazard throwing about of religious labels and the endless refining of label definitions seves only to fuzz the boundaries. This puts me in mind of an exchange we had with Hugh Hewitt in our interview with him:

LB:   You also say, if we can ask one more question, that Romney should have a stable of “high profile Christians of the most orthodox sort,” people who can step forward at key moments and talk about his faith issues. Who? Who are those people?

HH:   I think Mark DeMoss is one of them because of his long standing association with so many great names in the evangelical movement, like Chuck Colson, like Bill Brite, like Jerry Falwell. Very high profile people. And at the same time, he is not a pastor. Chuck Colson would be a great one as well, to speak to this issue, if he does get engaged in the campaign. But those are the — mostly I am going to look for very, very successful men of business and politics who will, like Jim DeMint, very orthodox Presbyterian senator out of South Carolina, he’s going to be a very effective spokesperson in this. I also like the fact that Rudy Giuliani, on my program, said in no uncertain terms, we are so far past this conversation that it shouldn’t be occurring.

JS:   Agreed.

HH:   Ok? And McCain’s spokesman has said a similar thing, but I have not heard Sen. McCain say it yet. I suspect that he will. Someone needs to ask Hillary and Obama about it soon. and then it has to be rigorously enforced. And that way we can raise the bar against the Weisbergs and the Linkers and The Nation magazine. And so, hopefully, that will be a bipartisan effort.

JS:   Well, I think it needs to be enforced within the campaigns as well, because while you are right, a McCain spokesman has said that, there continues to be rumbling out of McCain associates in South Carolina.

HH:   There have been. And that’s troubling. That’s very troubling.  By McCain associates, you mean previously volunteers and associates have attacked Romney for his Mormon beliefs.

JS:   That’s right.

HH:   And that needs to be disavowed and distance needs to be established from people who do that. It has to be de-legitimized. [Emphasis added.]

Lowell: I'd like to see more people like Dobson and Mohler stand up and make those disavowals. I'm not holding my breath.

Romney took some barbs, undoubtedly good-naturedly, at the Gridiron Dinner. Jokes based on race, religion, stereotyping in general, always have been and likely always will be, comedy staples. Most people understand they are just jokes. But sometimes I wonder . . . .

I love this blog title, and it's a pretty good post too.

Romney and my home state politics. I've been gone way too long, I don't know anybody mentioned in the piece.