Article VI Blog

The "Mormon money" story broke big as AP put it out and it was picked up by numerous outlets. As NewsMax carries it is is reasonably balanced, at least as balanced as covering it AT ALL can get. It does contain one heck of a point:

That new donors may boil down to a simple issue: Many Utahans simply never had been asked.

Interestingly, CBN, which has been pretty friendly to Romney, carried the story without edits, but featured the Mormon connection in the headline. The Boston Globe, hardly surprisingly at this point, makes it all sound very sinister in their version of the headline.

The Examiner (and any number of other outlets) carries it in the worst possible fashion, under a headline that reads: "Romney Taps Donors Through Mormon Church". That would violate how many election laws? Not to mention cost the LDS church its non-profit status. Do you think the headline writers read the stories first? This is a flat out misrepresentation not only of the facts, but of the story they headline!

Amanda Carpenter, writing at Human Events, has her own take on the story and I have to say, it's sad for an admittedly conservative outlet. She works very hard, very hard indeed, to make the case the Romney's money is "Mormon money" - and yet conservatives are supposed to be the people without the labels. I never thought I'd see the day when a major newswire like AP would write a story, that is already old and tired, in a fashion that is more balanced than the new media outlets.

Lowell adds: I haven't done the research, but it would be interesting to know how many stories were written in 2004 about how much money Senator Joseph Lieberman raised from Jews. That a large number of Mormons who've not given to presidential campaigns in the past are giving to Romney this year seems quite unsurprising to me. Why is this news?

And here's a little more on another aspect of the story: Romney's own money. I guess that's "Mormon money" too, but that very term conjures up memories of other conspiratorial theories about a religious group and their money.

Speaking of CBN, David Brody, their chief political guy, was interviewed recently and he had this to say, echoing what we hear from other major pundits

7. You work for an openly Christian news organization. Judging from your readers and your contacts, how real is Mitt Romney’s Mormon problem?

It’s an issue for sure but not something that he can’t overcome. There are those who truly say no way they won’t vote for Romney just because he’s Mormon. But there are an equal amount of other people who care that his values seem to match up with their values.

Article VI favorite John Mark Reynolds has posted part one of a six part series on his creedal Christian faith and voting. This first post alone is full of interesting insight and quotable material, but we shall be patient and merely link, saving commentary and likely AMENS until the end.

And now, just pondering: Does this make you want to take back your vote from the last presidential race?

We continue to argue here that too intimate a connect between religion and politics harms all religion as well as politics. Consider this story about hate crimes legislation. Assault is assault is assault, and it is a crime - any violent attack on another is a crime, but to make it more of a crime because it has a "hate motive" comes dangerously close limitations of religious expression. My faith certainly considers homosexuality a sin, but does not condone violence against homosexual individuals, yet such legislation would eventually punish the religious conviction of sinfulness, not just the violent crime, even if only used against individuals who have a gross misunderstanding of my religious belief. When we draw lines, even in the privacy of the voting booth, on which religious affiliations we will and will not vote for, we are thinking along the same lines as the people that draft these laws - and we are granting that thought legitimacy.

As evidence that there is a strong movement against religions in general, consider this story. There is no way a wrong citation undoes the entire concept of papal infallibility - that is something attached to the office, not the individual, and to contend otherwise is just heinous. Thy think they are being cute or funny, but they are not, they are simply being insulting to the millions of Catholics in the world. And in that same vein, this story out of England is horrific in so many ways. These women's behavior is abhorrent and vile, but the story fails to draw any connection between that behavior and their claim of LDS faith other than they were LDS. Talk about your "hit and run."

Lowell: This speech by the President of the LDS Church spells out how the Church responds to child abuse. It is a classic statement of LDS belief and echoes what has been said for years. Just a few graphs:

Now I wish to mention another form of abuse that has been much publicized in the media. It is the sordid and evil abuse of children by adults, usually men. Such abuse is not new. There is evidence to indicate that it goes back through the ages. It is a most despicable and tragic and terrible thing. I regret to say that there has been some very limited expression of this monstrous evil among us. It is something that cannot be countenanced or tolerated. The Lord Himself said, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6).

That is very strong language from the Prince of Peace, the Son of God.

I quote from our Church Handbook of Instructions: “The Church’s position is that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. Those who abuse … are subject to Church discipline. They should not be given Church callings and may not have a temple recommend. Even if a person who abused a child sexually or physically receives Church discipline and is later restored to full fellowship or readmitted by baptism, leaders should not call the person to any position working with children or youth unless the First Presidency authorizes removal of the annotation of the person’s membership record.

The news report that makes such prominent mention of the religion of the accused women doesn't mention any of this; I found the above statement on the Internet in exactly 60 seconds. Maybe the Evening Standard reporters on this story were pressed for time.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » | Print this post | Email This Post