Article VI Blog

The following interview took place on April 19, 2007, between John Schroeder ("JS") and Lowell Brown ("LB") of Article VI Blog, and Stan Guthrie ("SG"), Senior Associate Editor of Christianity Today Magazine.

______________________________________ 

JS:    Here we are today with Stan Guthrie.  Stan is the Senior Associate Editor of Christianity Today Magazine.  Christianity Today is the premiere magazine covering evangelical Christianity, and Stan also blogs at http://www.stanguthrie.com.  Thanks for joining us today, Stan.

SG:    Glad to be here.  Thanks for having me.

JS:    Stan, you and the staff of Christianity Today probably have your finger on the pulse of what’s going on in evangelicalism more than any other single source.  I guess the first question I would ask you is, politics aside, simply, on the question of religion, how big a problem do you think Mitt Romney has because he is LDS?

SG:    Well, I am probably looking at the same polls you are, and what I understand is that he has a problem in that he is a Mormon and there is a good bit of distrust of Mormons among evangelicals.  I mean, for years, Mormonism, or the Latter Days Saints Church, sorry, has been labeled a cult.  So it is kind of hard to overcome that four letter “c” word, and I would say there is a fair bit of distrust, but also some interest, because he is obviously an accomplished person, accomplished governor, and he holds a lot of positions that evangelicals would find interesting — particularly those with a conservative slant to their politics.

JS:    Have you had much opportunity to discuss this issue — I mean, your interview subjects over the years have covered the breadth of both conservatism to liberalism, both theologically and politically.

SG:    I’m in an interesting position.  It’s fun.

JS:    I’m sure it is.  Have you had much opportunity to discuss this issue with those people?  I mean, ranging from James Dobson to Newt Gingrich to Jim Wallace to Marvin Olasky, just all across the board there.

SG:    You mean whether a Mormon can be elected?

JS:    Elected President, yes.

SG:    That’s starting to happen more and more, but honestly, until really the last year or so, maybe a little less than that, it really hasn’t been an issue.  It just hasn’t been on our radar screens because there has been no credible Mormon candidate.  I mean, you get people like Orrin Hatch, in the Senate and you think, well, he’s a good ally on a lot of issues and I think he has built up some respect, but honestly, I think most of us haven’t thought that much about it and I think it is still pretty new to a lot of people.

I think probably there is a good chunk of evangelicals who just haven’t thought about it and are willing to be persuaded.  There have been a lot of developments over the last several years of contacts between Christians of all kinds and people from Latter Day Saints.  I think some eyes are being opened and I think some stereotypes are being dispelled, or at least, addressed in a realistic way, where there is someone sitting across the table from you and it’s not just a reference in a book about cults.  It’s a real person and you get to hear them discuss what they really believe, you find that they are maybe not quite as scary as they were made out to be.

JS:    Sure.  Well, obviously I think that, given that I blog with Lowell.  I communicate with him probably almost as much as my wife, it seems like sometimes.

LB:    I’m an interviewer, and I’m sorry, because I’m supposed to be asking the questions, but I will say, blogging with John I also have learned an awful lot about evangelicalism.  I think there is a lesson in that for everyone.

SG:    One of the things I have really appreciated since coming to Christianity Today is learning the notion that you need to see how the life is lived.  How its followers live the thing — Whether it is Latter Day Saints, whether it is Islam, or Episcopalians, or whatever.  You can’t just get it from press clippings and references in books.  You have to see how it is actually lived out in the real world and what the nuances are and what is stressed and what is not stressed.  I think as that goes on with followers of Mormonism, that some of those stereotypes and concerns will be addressed.  I’m not saying all will be, but certainly when you establish a relationship with someone, you have a much better chance of building a friendship and seeing things more sympathetically.

JS:    Do you think that in order for Mitt Romney to be elected that a lot of the — I’m trying to figure out the right way to say this — I want to say myths about Mormonism, but some are myths and some are facts just twisted wrong — are going to have to be overcome?  Or do you think Mitt Romney, or any other candidate, can do that simply on the basis of being a good individual?

SG:    Well, this was a little bit before my time, but as you know John F. Kennedy had to address that issue head on and reassure people that the stereotypes of Catholics that were common at the time were not going to apply to him.  And I would guess that Mitt Romney will probably have to do something similar to reassure people that Mormons don’t have horns and hooves and that kind of thing, because a lot of people are suspicious.  I don’t know how he would do that, particularly, but certainly, just speaking forthrightly as an American citizen, as a leader, as an accomplished person is going to help.  But probably, for some people, he is going to have to go a bit farther and, you know, explain how his faith is going to inform his politics.

LB:    I have a follow up here.  When Kennedy gave his speech, the only real issue was whether or not he would be independent of the Vatican.  And it seems to me that is one question people have about Romney:  Will he be independent of Salt Lake City?  I think that’s an easy question for him to address, but as you have mentioned, in Romney’s case there seem to be a number of other questions he would need to address.  Do you have any ideas, from what you have gathered from speaking to evangelicals and other Christians, as to the necessary scope of his outreach, his speech or other gesture in that direction?

SG:    Well, I wouldn’t say I have a definitive answer, but I think back to the time, I think it was 1984, when Reagan came to the National Association of Evangelicals and he said, “I know you can’t endorse me, but I endorse you.”  He lowered any kind of barriers and he let the people know that he was really supportive of them.  I would be very surprised if Romney didn’t make some similar kind of a gesture where he talks with evangelicals and probably tries to allay some of their fears.  I don’t know if you do that on a large scale or a small scale.

JS:    Well, he has had some meetings with a broad swath of evangelical leaders on a couple of occasions.  And –

SG:    So far, I don’t believe that whatever he said to some of these leaders has really filtered down to the masses.  So, somehow it is going to have to be conveyed that Romney is OK.  You know what I mean?

JS:    Sure. — Are there any specific corners, labels of evangelicalism where you think the problem is larger than others?

SG:    Could you be a little more specific?

JS:    For example, my sense is that there haven’t been any evangelicals that have come out and said, Richard Land’s term was a “deal breaker,” that have come out and said that Romney’s faith is just going to prevent them from voting for him, but there are some who have concerns.  Al Mohler has expressed concerns.  James Dobson hasn’t expressed concern so much as he said that he doesn’t think some people will vote for Romney because of that.  Those are both people who are towards the very conservative end of the scope of evangelicalism.  And I am wondering if you think, therefore my perception is that that’s where the problems lie, on the most conservative end.

SG:    And they’re also the ones who are the most likely to support him.

JS:    That’s what I understand.  And so I’m trying to get a feel for — for example, I’m a Presbyterian.  We come from a relatively liberal background, both theologically and politically.  As a matter of fact, there’s just not a lot of buzz in Presbyterian circles about it being a problem.  So, that’s kind of what I’m looking for, is it a Baptist issue, a Presbyterian issue?  It is an Evangelical Independent Church issue, or what do you think?

SG:    I think it is in the broad evangelical movement.  I would say the more fundamentalist the persuasion of the group, the harder it will be because I think some of those stereotypes will be a little harder to remove and to address.

JS:    Lowell, you had some questions from the interview Stan did with Hugh, didn’t you?

LB:    Yes.  Stan, you did an interview with High Hewitt about his book, A Mormon in the White House?  It was posted on February 27th.  I was interested in his answer to one of your questions.  You asked him: “Would any theological believe be disqualifying for a Presidential candidate?”  And his answer was this:

Not a theological belief, but if the theological believe resulted in a political position, it could.  For example, if a Raelian believed that we needed to embrace cloning, I would say, I can’t vote for you because you are in favor of cloning.

That’s a sensible and principled position, but I have two questions for you about it.  Do you think, as an observer of Christianity, that it is realistic to expect a lot of people to adopt that position?

SG:    I think it is a principled position.  It is one that I think that if you stretch it, it doesn’t work.  I think it works in the broad scheme of things, but when you get to the extremes it won’t work.  Just to use the Raelians as an example, no matter what their positions were on the issues, if they lined up with my personal positions 100%, I would not vote for them because I think Raelianism by definition is crazy and so anyone who would believe in that system would not be Presidential timber in my estimation.  So, I think the real question is, is not would any theological belief be disqualifying, but would Mormon theological beliefs be disqualifying, in the case of Mr. Romney.

LB:    It’s clear that the question is quite academic because a Raelian would never get to the point of being a credible candidate for President.

SG:    Well, let’s hope not.

JS:    Aren’t they all dead now?

LB:    So there is a line and I guess it is one of those “We’ll know it when we see it” lines.

SG:    And I think the encouraging thing for Mr. Romney is that the line has been moving.  As we have mentioned, a lot of people would draw the line at a Catholic in years past.  And we have pretty much given up that line and now we are tying to see where the line really is.  I think it would be much more difficult for a Muslim to be President than it would for a Mormon to be President.

LB:    I agree.

SG    So, it depends on the sensibilities of the American people.  So I think Mr. Romney has a job ahead of him to say the line doesn’t stop at me, it stops at somebody else.

LB:    Some follow up questions.  I noticed in the online version of the article, there were 95 comments.

SG:    Oh, really?

LB:    Yes, and to call that set of comments a spirited discussion would be an understatement.  But that is what we have come to expect, John and I, when we explore this issue.  One commenter raised a question which has also been raised by the Rev. Al Mohler, which is, and I’ll quote, “If Romney comes near to gaining the White House, he will add huge legitimacy to Mormonism, a religion that is contrary to historic Christianity and a threat to the Gospel.”  And others have expressed that.  Frankly, as a Mormon I find that to be a logical position to take.  

SG:    Illogical?

LB:    Pardon me?

SG:    Illogical?

LB:    No, it is a logical position to take.  I also think it is mistaken.  Even so, I can’t get my hands around who widely shared Mohler's view is.  Do you have a sense of that?

SG:    I would think that it wouldn’t be a cause, but it would be an effect.  If he does get to that point, I think that means that Mormonism is viewed as a legitimate American religion and expression of faith and it is not a big deal.  I don’t think Romney in himself has the power or the position to be able to force, I’m just using a term, “force Mormonism down people’s throats” if they are not ready to swallow it anyway.

LB:    In Hugh’s book, Romney did point out – apparently with tongue in cheek– that Mormon baptisms have not increased appreciably in Massachusetts since his election to Governor.

SG:    That’s an interesting little detail.  Yeah, I think probably just — how do I say this — just the increased press and increased media visibility can’t but help Mormonism unless he makes some terrible mistakes, or people around him, who are Mormon, make terrible mistakes.  

I mean, I’m not comparing Mormonism to Islam, but even after 9/11 there was a surge in interest in Islam, simply because people were talking about it and saying, well, what is this?  Certain people had not heard of it before we were attacked.  So, in that sense, there will be some people who are interested in Mormonism, who otherwise wouldn’t have been, as they face the issue and as the doctrines or the practices of the latter Day Saints church, become known to them.

JS:    Again, as an interviewer, I’m not supposed to make a comment, but I have to.  The other thing that strikes me is that granting Mormonism legitimacy as an American expression of faith, does not establish the truth or falsity of that belief, which is what’s at root when it comes to adopting it as a religious faith.  So, those are kind of –

SG:    Well, I don’t know.  People adopt religions for all different kinds of reasons.  Some might be because they think it is true, others because it might make them feel good, or, you know, meet some kind of need in their life.  

LB:    How widely shared do you think that view is?  The Al Mohler view that I just described?

SG:    Gosh, Al Mohler speaks for a lot of people, but he doesn’t speak for everyone.  I would guess it would be a fair, a very sizable minority.

LB:    And to be fair to Al Mohler, I think he has said that he would agonize over the decision.  I’m not sure he has said yet that he would simply not vote for Romney for that reason.

SG:    I think we are all sort of in a waiting mode.  Let’s see where he goes with this and what his policies are, and also who the man is.  I think you can overcome a lot of things and get someone’s vote.  I mean, Ronald Reagan was divorced and he didn’t go to church much when he was in the office of the Presidency, and by and large, evangelicals loved him and he overcame those negative factors.  So, it could happen again.

LB:    I want to read to you, and this is my last question.  I’m crossing my fingers when I say that of course.

SG:    So am I.

LB:    I noticed something that Harold Bloom said in his book The American Religion, and I’ll quote it:  

The Southern Baptists and the Mormons betray remarkably parallel configurations and spiritual temperament and in what might be called the sensibility of belief.  In my analysis they are different varieties of the American Religion and they actually share far more than they dispute.

Question:  How do you respond to that thought?

SG:    I think he is probably thinking more from a sociological level.  Certainly there are a lot of similarities — The energy, the evangelistic imperative, the social cohesion, that king of thing.  But I think there are some great fundamental differences between the Latter Day Saints’ beliefs and what I would say standard evangelical beliefs, and the Southern Baptists would be one variety of that.  And certainly, I think, probably at root the differences are pretty deep but they do seem to have a lot of things in common and we come together for a lot of good and necessary reasons.  And I think if we decide to focus on the things that bring us together, there is certainly a lot we can work on and I wouldn’t necessarily think that the theological differences are going to be deal breakers for a lot of people.  Really, it remains to be seen.  And I think as the campaigns move forward, some of those potential problems are going to surface.  We are going to see: Are they serious or not?  And I don’t think anyone knows right now.

LB:    I’m going to confirm my status as a liar right now and ask one more question.  One of the commenters to your interview said this:

I think it will be interesting to see if some Christians can look beyond their attitudes toward Mormonism to the bigger picture.  Will they instead go for an adulterer, Giuliani, or a man who has previously sneered at evangelical beliefs, McCain?  

I am wondering whether we are going to get into those kinds of issues among evangelicals and other creedal Christians.  Are they going to look at the candidates, look at Romney, married 38 years, 5 sons, a perfectly clean, and no-skeletons-in-the-closet record.  Is that going to matter to them more than his religion, based on your perception, Mr. Guthrie?

SG:    Well, my goodness, John Edwards is by all accounts, happily married for 30 years and I know a lot of politically conservative Christians who would never vote for him.  So, it is more than just the personal narrative that a person has.  I think it all kind of works together.  I know plenty of evangelical Christians who are thinking of voting for Giuliani, not because they agree with him on abortion or on his personal morality, which we would find reprehensible on both counts, but the fact that he is a strong figure who might be needed in a time of terrorism and war.  So, that said, I think Mr. Romney has a pretty good chance of winning us over even though we might have fundamental differences with him on theology.  As Hugh said, he is not looking for a pastor; he’s looking for a President.  While most evangelicals are not as pragmatically focused as Hugh is, I think there is a large number who are looking to make the best decision they can for the country and they are not trying to have a theological convention.

LB:    Well, with that I need to drop off the call.  Please continue without me, John.

JS:    Ok, thanks, Lowell.  

SG:    Thanks Lowell.

LB:    Thank you very much.  It has been a pleasure speaking with you and making your acquaintance.  Your comments are terribly interesting.

SG:    Well, thank you very much.  Look forward to talking with you again.

LB:    Goodbye.

JS:    Stan, I really have just one more question for you.

SG:    Sure, sure.

JS:    That is, how closely does Christianity Today follow politics?

SG:    We try not to be in the day to day slugfest.  And we don’t handicap the races and we don’t see that as our primary calling as a magazine.  I mean, people can get political analyses all over the charts, but what we try to do is find the spiritual implications and applications of what is going on.  We try to help our readers get to know the candidates, what they believe, how they live out their faith if they have one, how their decisions and prejudices would affect not only evangelical Christians, but just the great moral issues of our time.

END OF INTERVIEW 

Posted in Interviews | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The Chicago Sun-Times carried an op-ed last Friday that trod what has by now become old ground, albeit arriving at the proper destination.  The first point that needs to be made about the piece is that it marks the second time we have encountered such a piece  (Frank Pastore's Townhall column from last week being the first) that says there should not be a problem for a creedal Christian voting for a Mormon but spends far more ink(electrons) spelling out the problems with the LDS faith than its political legitimacy.

What this tells me is that the religion issue battle on the right (the left is still warming up) is won in the sense that no one will just come out and say we should not vote for a Mormon, but that prejudices remain strong.   Which brings me to my second point.  Consider the opening of the piece:

As a teenager, spiritually educated in the Southern Baptist church and conservative evangelical Christian school I attended, I learned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a cult, and that its members, the Mormons, most certainly were not Christians.

 

I heard repeatedly in lectures from Bible teachers briefing us on the LDS church's strange theological beliefs and from church folk training us how to counter Mormon evangelistic efforts with our own that Mormonism was a threat to "real Christians."

If one sets aside the overuse of superlatives, the lack of grace in the descriptions, and the harsh vocabulary, there is truth there.  When it comes to evangelistic efforts, LDS and Evangelicals are in competition and are therefore "threatening" to each other.  However, what in the world has that got to do with presidential politics?  I seem to recall an intramural basketball game or two in high school where I knocked the wind completely out of the guy I voted for class president. (No foul call by the way)  Competition in one field does not necessarily translate into another.

Which brings me to the third part in John Mark Reynolds six part series on the intersection of religion and politics, rather beguilingly entitled "This Next Presidential Election 3/6: Truly and Impartially Administer Justice (or Why Mitt Romney Should Never Be King of England!)"  As with the earlier two parts, this part is too meaty for ready encapsulation, but it illustrates how, in addition to ignorance about Mormonism, our nation is rampant with misunderstanding about the nature, limits, and functioning of our government.  Hence we mistakenly think that competition in intramural basketball translates to competition in student elections, if you will.  It is the limitations of our government that prevent that intersection.  Part Four of the Reynolds series also went up over the weekend.

This is sarcasm, it is false, but remarkably it sounds almost exactly like what some would contend would come out of Salt Lake City.  I think there is an important lesson there.

News from the old home front.  All I can say is, if Salt Lake City is going to dictate policy, they really need to get their act together.

Mary Kathryn Ham has a brief interview with Romney.  No mention of religion, but it contains a very interesting exchange that I think says volumes about how the campaign intends to handle The Question:

MKH: Have any horror stories, worst moments with the MSM?

 

MR: You know, I’m sure I do. There’s probably more than one, but I’ve never liked people who engage in too much whining, so I’ll skip telling you about the worst that’s happened.

Those that insist Romney's religion problem comes from the right, might want to consider this Editorial cartoon from Friday's Philly Inquirer (HT: K-Lo at the Corner)

The voice of religion in America politics won a small and rare victory the courts last week, and this is how the left reacts.  If WE of the "religious right" exclude a candidate on the basis of his faith, should it not be obvious that others will begin to exclude us on the same basis?  This cartoon is a shot across the bow for any religiously motivated voter.  Next time it may not be just a cartoon, it may be a ballot.

Update from Lowell:  This PBS broadcast from last Friday also covers much-trodden ground.  We have polygamy myths; the fear of a Mormon U.S. president kowtowing to his church's leadership; church critics quoted as authorities on what the church believes (and making mistakes in their statements); and so forth. 

This is all pretty tired stuff; I will address only one true howler in the piece, this statement by Dr. Phil Roberts, president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:  

One of the conditions for being temple-worthy is that you have to swear allegiance to the Mormon president whom they believe can receive from God direct revelation.

Any Mormon who holds what we call a "temple recommend" will read that statement and wonder what Dr. Roberts is talking about.  It is simply an ignorant comment.  We do not "swear allegiance" to any man.  We do acknowledge in the course of an interview for a temple recommend that we sustain the president of the Church as a prophet of God.  That just means that in ecclesiastical matters we believe no one else is authorized to exercise the full divine authority on earth.  It has nothing to do with political matters.  If the president of our church really were calling political shots for Mormon officeholders, how could Harry Reid (a committed, temple-going  Mormon, and Mitt Romney (also a committed, Temple-going Mormon) hold such divergent political views?

Again, anyone who really want to know what Catholics believe should ask a Catholic, not a critic of Catholicism.  The same is true of any faith.

John comments:  In one sense Lowell is right – yada,yada, yada – seen this all before.  However, the power of television communication gives this a new flair and impact not seen in the print pieces.  It also provides a handy outline for differences between creedals and Mormons, they are twofold – theological and historical.

The historical ones are just that HISTORICAL, meaning they are no longer applicable, so why bring them up?

When it comes to the theological ones, this piece, like every piece before it, fails to connect the dots.  Here's the formulation:  Mormons believe differently; that's a problem for Mitt Romney; here is what they (Mormons) believe, reported to varying degrees of accuracy.  They never explain why the differences are problematic in public service.  Such a formulation creates the illusion of a problem where none actually exists.  Differences do not equate to problems.

This piece structurally tries to appear point/counter-point, interviewing Evangelicals followed by LDS leadership, but fails to actually achieve balance.  It is quite notable that the Evangelicals presented are not, save one, in positions of great leadership.  The one authoritative Evangelical voice cited is in a position of doctrinal, not political leadership, and even at that, he is from the minor leagues.

The most notable lack of balance; however, occurs in using that semi-authoritative voice to present the old "SLC-in-charge" accusation — which is never answered from an LDS official.  The piece then immediately spins off into purely doctrinal stuff that has no political ramification whatsoever.  I'd call that trying to disguise a political attack in religious clothing.

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

Newt Gingrich recently published a little book called Rediscovering God in America.  It is a brief tour around the monuments of Washington, D.C. emphasizing the references to the Almighty on those various monuments and in the writings of the Founding Fathers.  Arguing the faith of the founders is a never ending and, I think, fruitless exercise.  Those views were varied enough for anyone to claim authority from virtually any viewpoint.  Which in the end is the real point.

Regardless, in the introduction to the book, Gingrich hits on what I consider an excellent formulation of America's "civil religion" that I thought worth presenting here for our reader's consideration.

Then in the Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1789, Washington declared, “It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” Note that Washington was not only asserting that individuals have obligations before God, but that nations do as well. At this point, the United States government was not yet a year old.

 

That most astute observer of early America, Alexis de Tocqueville, observed in Democracy in America (1835):

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can read the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizen or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society

The secular Left and the media-academic-legal elite would argue that even if de Tocqueville were right, he is irrelevant because he is writing about an earlier America. They argue that America has changed profoundly and is now a very different country. Justice O’Connor herself wrote that the phrase “under God” was adopted in 1954 when “our national religious diversity was neither as robust nor as well recognized as it is now.”

 

Yet this is a profound misinterpretation of modern America. As Michael Novak has noted, recognizing one nation “under God” is much more important in a country as religiously diverse as America because the phrase tran­scends any one faith or denomination and is inclusive. Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has pointed out that “Americans tend to have a certain catholicity toward reli­gion: All deserve respect.”

 

More importantly, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers concerning religious liberty is just as relevant today as it was in 1787 because it reflects a fundamental insight about human nature and how men and women might best live out the political experiment in ordered liberty that they ordained in Philadelphia.

 

The Founders had a very straightforward belief that liberty was the purpose of a just government, but that the maintenance of this liberty among a free people would require virtue.

 

And if virtue was to survive, it would require “true reli­gion”, which was any religion that cultivates the virtues necessary to the protection of liberty.

 

Implicit within this vision of the Founding Fathers is a pluralistic sensibility. Any true religion would be therefore deserving of the respect of the government, which would include the freedom to express in public the moral princi­ples of such a true religion.

Lowell adds:  For those who may be wondering, Mormon doctrine is 100% consistent with, and supportive of, these views.  Our 11th Article of Faith states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[tags]Newt Gingrich, Founding Fathers, faith, religion, civic religion[/tags]

Posted in Book Reviews, Candidate Qualifications, Electability, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

We continue our links to Professor John Mark Reynolds' series of posts, this time with no. 2 of 6, beguilingly entitled "This Next Presidential Election 2/6: Direct and Dispose the Hearts of all Christian Rulers."  There's too much heft to his piece for me to excerpt it; you need to read the whole thing.

Rabbi Levi Brackman writes about Why Mitt Romney's Mormonism is Important.  His reasoning is novel, as far as we can tell:

In common with Judaism Mormonism is a tolerant religion and the eleventh of their Articles of Faith states: “We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

 

Thus, a true Mormon does not believe in a one size fits all religion where all unbelievers are condemned to hell and damnation or to a life as second class citizens. Like Judaism the Mormon Church of LDS respects the mode of worship of others different to their own. They would thus never compel others to accept their religion.

This article is entitled "Hollywood Republicans Lean to Romney In '08," but it's about how much Romney has earned in California.  There's not a word about "Hollywood" or the entertainment community.  And– with no evidence at all– the author suggests that the $3.5 million Romney has already taken in from the Golden State somehow came from . . . Mormons. 

John comments:  While I have not given a dime to the Romney campaign or to its predeccessor the Commenweatlh PAC, I have attended fund-raisers for both here in California.  It is quite helpful to gather background and establish contacts.  I did meet several prominent California Mormons at the PAC fund-raiser about a year ago.  However, at the campaign event just as few weeks agao, aside from Romney's immediate family, we were all creedal, at least amongst the people I spoke with.  Lowell calls it a "suggestion" – I'm thinking "assertion without evidence."

The dean of a not especially well-known law school located in Southern California, the mission of which is "to champion a Christian theory of jurisprudence in the marketplace of ideas," holds forth on The Question.  In the dean's view, Romney's Mormonism means Christian voters should not give him their vote.  A sampling of the blogger's reasoning:

[B]elieving in Mormonism is clearly ridiculous. A detailed study of what Mormons believe shows it to be quite incredible in many ways.

Makes me wonder whether the author is channeling Jacob Weisberg.

John comments:  When pushed, people who are at least trying to make a reasonable argument against voting for a Mormon seem to always come down into one of two places when pushed.  Either the "inherent unreasonableness" of the LDS faith or "LDS lies."  These foundational arguments are so awful as to almost not need dispute; however, please consider:

• No faith formulation is entirely and inherently reasonable, despite what its adherents may think.  I certainly find my creedal faith more reasonable than the LDS faith, or I'd change.  But having said that all religion is a matter of reason – tempered with faith.  We creedals are as open to this attack as the LDS.  Making it is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot.

• Every faith has its adherents that are both unreasonable and/or liars.  A faith tradition cannot be discarded as worthy of a place in a religiously diverse nation simply because some of it adherents are dishonorable or poor-thinking.  Again, I could run a litany of creedal Christian liars and charlatans and ones that are thoughtless.  It would be as long or longer than a similar list for Mormons.  Again, a self-inflicted wound.

• Finally, if Mormonism is indeed so unreasonable and so deceptive, how is it that the plethora of Mormon government officials throughout history have been able to do their jobs?  Where is the scandal in Mass. where Romney has just finished four years of exemplary service as governor?  At a minimum, anybody that wants to assert these things about Mormonism must concede that Mitt Romney and any other Mormon similarly accomplished must be an "exceptional" Mormon somehow.  And if they are so exceptional, why then can we not vote for that individual?  After all, we need exceptional people in government service.

We make a grave mistake when we confuse religious truth claims with social religious legitimacy.  I do not hold the truth claims of the LDS faith to be true.  Lowell, contrarily does not hold the truth claims of my creedal Christian, Calvinist, Presbyterian faith to be true.  But that does not mean we cannot acknolwedge the place of both in our social and governmental fabric.  It is in fact the deepest wisdom of our nation that we can.

Finally, it was only a matter of time before someone came up with a list of the Top 10 Religious Conservatives, and how the presidential candidates are wooing them.

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

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.

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

The campaign, appropriately, came pretty much to a halt yesterday.  It seems appropriate for this blog to honor that as well.

President Bush said something most appropriate for the circumstances and this blog in his speech at Virginia Tech yesterday:

These sources of strength are also in the faith that sustains so many of us. Across the town of Blacksburg and in towns all across America, houses of worship from every faith have opened their doors and have lifted you up in prayer. People who have never met you are praying for you; they're praying for your friends who have fallen and who are injured. There's a power in these prayers, real power. In times like this, we can find comfort in the grace and guidance of a loving God. As the Scriptures tell us, "Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

[tags]campaign, President Bush, Virginia Tech, tragedy, mourning[/tags]

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