Several commenters to this blog have expressed doubt about our position that in the context of politics, it is primarily the left side of the political spectrum, not the right, that attacks religion– not just Mitt Romney's religion, but belief in the miraculous in general. 

All I know is what we've seen in the year that Article VI Blog has existed.  Believe me, it isn't pretty for liberals.  Yes, there are some shrill voices on the right, but most of those are cranks, except for those who, like Al Mohler, who are not shrill, and who have a principled concern about supporting a Mormon for the presidency.  Mohler and those who agree with him are fundamentally and tragically wrong, I believe, but they're at least thoughtful and respectful in their discussion of the issue, and they try to be accurate and well-informed when they discuss Mormonism.

Thanks to a kind link to our blog from Katie Baker of television station KUTV in Salt Lake City, I came across BloggingheadsTV, which as nearly as I can tell is anything but a conservative site.  The proprietor of the blog is Robert Wright, a New America Foundation Fellow whom that organization's web site describes as an expert on religion. 

(Note:  In my quick review of his interviews on Bloggingheads TV, Wright discusses religion the way someone discusses a subject they find intellectually interesting, but about which they know little.  In fact, in the interviews I saw, Wright himself regularly professes ignorance or uncertainty about what particular faiths believe.  Maybe the New America Foundation should revise Wright's bio.)

Two interviews seem noteworthy in the Article VI Blog context.  First, in this one, entitled "Mormonism (and Romney's) Weirdness Problem," Wright interviews Bruce Feiler, who has written some books about ancient (Jewish) religion. The interview is only 3:28 long; I encourage everyone to watch it. 

If you're knowledgeable at all about Mormonism, you'll be amazed both at Feiler's ignorance and at the certainty with which he expresses it.  Of course, if you are not familiar with Mormonism, you might think Feiler knows what he is talking about.  (He obviously doesn't.  Trust me.  Both Wright and Feiler are laughably ignorant on the subject.) 

Some tidbits from both interviews:

• Feiler:  Mormonism "is out there.  It's so out there, Bob."

• Feiler mentions Mormon temple garments (the special undergarments, sacred to Mormons, and which so fascinated Andrew Sullivan a few months back), and states that Mormons must wear the underwear "at certain times of the month."  (He is utterly mistaken.)  Charmingly, both Wright and Feiler then laugh at the notion of wearing sacred undergarments.

• After referring to Joseph Smith as the "founder of Mormonism," Wright asks Feiler, "That is his name, isn't it?" (Yes, Wright's an expert on religion!)  Joseph Smith's "problem," according to Wright, is that he arose as a religious leader in a time when there were newspapers, which enabled unfavorable contemporaneous documentation of his deeds.  In contrast, Wright observes, there were no "videocams" during Moses' time, and Jesus did not have to contend with any news media.  Such is the respect Wright, the expert on religion, accords to those who believe in the miraculous:  Jesus and Moses could get away with creating myth only because of the times they lived in; Joseph Smith was not so fortunate.

• Feiler then speaks of polygamy as a problem for Romney, as if the Church still practiced polygamy.  He does not even mention the 1890 discontinuation of the practice.

The interview continues in the same vein.  You really have to watch it to believe it. 

• In this later interview, an apparently somewhat chastened (but still ignorant) Wright interviews Michael Kinsley, who introduces the still-unexplored thought that even though religion might be an issue for Romney, maybe it should not be.  Wright responds (lamely, my view) that he's "shocked" at the number of people who have ridiculed Mormonism and have said Romney's religion is indeed fair game.

Well.  Does anyone else find Wright's expression of shock a little . . . disingenuous?  Wasn't he the one laughing on camera about practices sacred to Mormons?

• Wright refers back to his interview with Bruce Feiler, and says "we got into a certain amount of trouble" because of the undergarment issue. He admits, "I'm kind of smiling about it now– sorry." (Perhaps Wright considers such apologies disarming or charming.)  "We got a little bit of reader blow-back, saying that was not respectful."  Defensively, he explains, "I laugh reflexively at the image." 

• Kinsley refers to "this weird underwear," and says "jokes about the underwear are fair."

Excuse me, but I am still waiting for jokes about Joseph Lieberman's yarmulke or his wearing of a tallit katan.  Wouldn't those be hilarious?

• But Kinsley is not finished.  He asks, rhetorically, about the Mormon undergarments: "In terms of daily life, how different is that from the ridiculous aspects of keeping kosher?" (Kinsley notes he is Jewish.)

Frankly, it has not occurred to me to describe the Jewish dietary laws, so deeply important to observant Jews, as "ridiculous."  Would the news media dare describe them that way in a story about Senator Lieberman?

• Wright responds, "I'll bet if you looked into Mormonism's specific beliefs, you wouldn't find it any weirder than Christianity," or words to that effect.   

Are you getting a feel for these interviews?  As I've stated before, I am prepared to comment on, and challenge, religious bigotry from whatever source.  But in the case of Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith, the documented instances of disrespect, carelessness, ignorance and outright bigotry have come from the left–  from the Robert Wrights and Michael Kinsleys of the world, and from Jacob Weisberg in Slate and Damon Linker in the venerable New Republic.  If you see mainstream conservative voices treating the issue in the same way, please let us know and we will comment on them.

As I've stated here repeatedly, I'm a Mitt Romney supporter, but this issue is much bigger than one candidate.  If Governor Romney manages to secure the Republican nomination, the left side of the mainstream news media (and wouldn't that mean most of it?) will have quite an opportunity to show what it's made of, and the country will be in for quite a discussion of what place religion has in public life.

John adds:  Even if Romney does not get the nomination, if religious arguments are allowed to stand, the religious voice in politics has lost.  Note how easily a discussion of Mormonism turns into a discussion of Jewish dietary law.  It is not very far from there to the Rosary, or baptism.  That's the real bottom line here, and what is really at stake.

In my opinion every voice on the right needs to denounce this kind of ridicule of any religion to preserve our own individual religion.  The left does not, as this evidences, see the difference between the "irrationalities" of Mormonism and the "irrationalities" of creedal Christianity - it is all just "irrational" to them.

Technorati Tags: Romney, Mormon, Mormonism, Mormon weirdness, kashrut, yarmulke, tallit katan, religious bigotry, Robert Wright, Bruce Feiler, Bloggingheads TV, Andrew Sullivan, Jacob Weisberg, Damon Linker, Michael Kinsley, New America Foundation , Mormon undergarments

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | No Comments yet » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• I Guess This is Adieu
• Short and To-The-Point
• Since Lowell Brought It Up…
• Dems, Religion, Missteps - Even Mistakes
• When You Interrupt Normal Blogging . . .
• A Romney/Biden Debate - Warm Up The Laugh Track
• An Open Letter to George H.W. Bush
• A Little More on the “Mormons Lie” and “Mormons Are Not Christians” Memes
• The Evangelical Break-up?
• Sitting on Pins and Needles…