Today’s Reading List – May 11, 2007
Sharpton's Mouth, Cont'd
The Washington Times editorializes on on "Sharpton's Slur."
In the New York Times, Sharpton's defense continues to be, "Let's change the subject!" He joins the ranks of those who think Romney should be interrogated about his faith and its history:
In a statement released by his office, Mr. Sharpton said: “In response to him I predicted that believers (not atheists) would vote against the candidate, in this case, Mr. Romney for political not religious reasons. In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon Church when I responded that other believers, not atheists, would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons.”
In the phone interview, Mr. Sharpton said that unlike many conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics, he believed that Mormons were Christians. But he also said Mr. Romney should be pressed about his church’s history and beliefs. “I believe if any religion preaches supremacy or unequalness, they are not true believers in God,” he said.
And his statement said, “Even though I didn’t bring this up, maybe one should ask Mr. Romney whether these were the articles of faith of his church to preach segregation and whether he was a member of the church at that time.”
(I don't know about you, but I am not finding the word "unequalness" in any dictionary.)
Some Catholic and Evangelical leaders leaped to Romney's support:
The Rev. Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister who heads the National Clergy Council, issued a statement calling on Sharpton to "immediately apologize to Mr. Romney and the good people of the LDS Church and repent before God for such sinful hubris."
Schenck, who has met privately with Romney to talk about Mormonism, also said that "while many other Christian groups may have differences with LDS doctrine, to question someone else's sincerity of belief in God is the height of pharisaical arrogance."
Ouch.
John comments: Sharpton's excuses miss the most essential fact, this is a political issue, not a religious one. A religious label describes two things, a system of beliefs and a people group. One of the most fundamental ideas that is America is that we do not politically discriminate amongst the people groups, regardless of the associated system of beliefs.
But as another somewhat unrelated side – Note that when Shaprton savaged Imus, Imus apologized and finds himself out of work. Sharpton refuses to apologize, which is the Clinton-proven path to public survival. What an incredibly sad statement on society, particularly from a man of faith.
Time Magazine
The cover story this week is on Romney. You'll see it on newsstands in 3 days. As a sort of preview, Nancy Gibbs writes about . . . the "Mormon Question." I think she accurately states that unlike John Kennedy, who had to show independence from Rome, the challenge for Romney is "to draw the lines about what's relevant and what's not." She highlights one aspect of Romney's problem:
Romney's strategists are well aware that the deadliest campaigns in Republican primaries are often the ones waged below the radar. But in this age it is impossible to track every scurrilous e-mail or answer every blog assault. "There are caricatures that pick some obscure aspect of your faith that you never even think about and assume that it was the central element of the church," Romney says, noting that Mormon leaders past and present "said all sorts of things, but they're not church doctrine."
You should read the whole piece. Note that Gibbs seems to rely on Jacob Weisberg as an authority on The Question. I have a Question of my own about that choice of experts: Why?
John adds: There is much to like about this Time piece, at least as much as can be liked about such being written. Its balance politically is quite good, though I agree with Lowell, they should cite Mormon sources on what Mormons believe, not Weisberg. Here is the real take-away to me:
The Mormon question has settled in right next to the issue of whether a twice-divorced man has credibility discussing family values or whether changing one's mind on an issue like abortion is a sign of moral growth or cynical retreat. Unlike in 1960, today the argument is less about the role of religion in public life than in private. It is about what our faith says about our judgment and how our traditions shape our instincts–and about what we have the right to ask those who run for the highest office in the land.
That is not a bad view. We are looking into the character of the candidate and religion does heavily influence character development in a person of faith, and likewise the lack thereof. When it comes to Romney and his LDS faith such should be invited. The man's character is impeccable. Those who want to establish the truth claims of their faith solely of the character of its adherents will find it disturbing that someone of a differing faith could have such character, but the facts are simply indisputable. Later in the piece, Hugh Hewitt is quoted and shows the stakes of not understanding this differentiation:
Hewitt counters that Romney is facing a double standard, born of a barely hidden bias. "It is unreasonable to demand that a Mormon candidate expose and defend his deepest beliefs in rational terms in order to reassure voters that he is of sound mind," he says. He warns Evangelicals hostile to Romney's religion against colluding with those he sees as hostile to all religions. "The secular left that does not like people of faith in the public square is very happy to have a group of Fundamentalists raise this issue and be a battering ram," Hewitt argues. But if purely theological challenge becomes acceptable, he says, your own theology will be next: Which miracles do you believe in; what about this contradiction in Scripture?
This piece is worthy for coming at the issue the right way, centering on the right questions.
Getting Personal
Should Giuliani be interrogated about deeply personal religious matters? For example, does he take communion? We don't think so– for Giuliani or any other candidate. But apparently Mike Wallace doesn't think anything is out of bounds. Drudge reports that in the upcoming "60 Minutes" piece on Romney:
Romney's wife, Ann, who converted to the Mormon Church before they were married, is also interviewed. When asked whether they broke the strict church rule against premarital sex, Romney says, "No, I'm sorry, we do not get into those things," but still managed to blurt out "The answer is no," before ending that line of questioning.
I wonder if that one will make it into the televised version. How on earth is such a question relevant to any material aspect of Romney's candidacy?
John opines: God save us all from Mike Wallace and his ilk. Did we not get over this with now infamous Clinton "boxer or briefs" question, and at least that was asked by a child!
A Liberal Writer Muses On The Question
In The New Republic, Michelle Cottle says Romney's "Mormon problem" comes from the right, not the left:
In the wake of last week's Republican debate, in fact, I started calling around to chat with social conservatives about the field of presidential wannabes. One prominent activist graciously took time out from burning an effigy of Rudy What's-the-Big-Deal-About-Roe? Giuliani to share this tidbit: "I asked a friend of mine who's a pastor in Middle America, 'You have a choice between two candidates: Hillary Clinton versus someone who is good on social issues and who is a Mormon.' And my friend said, 'I don't think I could vote for a Mormon.' "
Think about that: A social conservative is given the choice between a Mormon and Hillary Clinton–the modern personification of Evil for GOP wingers–and he can't make up his mind? This does not bode well for Mitt's fortunes in the Heartland.
She goes on to suggest that Romney has less to fear from liberals and Democrats than from conservatives. I have a five-part response:
What do the names on this list have in common? They're all liberals, and all five have made full frontal religious bigoted attacks on Romney– the only high-profile such attacks so far. Liberals don't have a great record in this area.
Despite its myopia, Cottle's piece is worth reading. For example, she illustrates well Romney's uphill battle against the MSM:
As of now, the candidate is largely ignoring the issue and hoping that it will fade. But it's tough to imagine that the widespread, if utterly irrational, unease over Mormonism is likely to get much better on its own any time soon. For starters, the second season of HBO's Mormon-themed "Big Love" starts June 11, once again spotlighting that whole unseemly polygamy stereotype that continues to plague the church, official policy notwithstanding. Then there's the September Dawn movie coming to theaters in late June, recounting the 1857 episode in which a group of Mormons slaughtered some 120 Arkansas settlers bound for California. As Bob Novak, who saw an advanced screening, described it, the movie depicts then-church president Brigham Young, "as a 19th-century Osama bin Laden. Calling himself a 'second Muhammad,' he insists on the 'shedding of blood' of 'gentiles.'" In a nation where most folks know vanishingly little about Mormonism, Team Romney had better start praying that the movie tanks.
Ms. Cottle might ask herself if the people behind Big Love and September Dawn are conservatives? Well, no, they're . . . liberals. Oh, dear. There goes that thesis!
John adds: Conscience is a wonderful thing and in this case I think it will win the day. The much vaunted Evangelicals like those quoted here are always on background, unquotable, and usually speaking about somebody else having a problem voting for a Mormon. This tells me most Evangelicals know their bias is improper. Rather than exercise the prejudice in the voting booth, I think their conscience will take hold and they will cast their vote on much more reasonable grounds.
Speaking of September Dawn
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Jon Voight, one of the movie's stars, today. At this writing the transcript is not up, but you will soon find it here. John: I'm on the road, but managed to catch most of the second hour. I missed the discussion of the movie, but Voight sounded like an actor that just took a job to me. We need to get to the writers and producers to find out if this is an attack piece or just some indefinite history morphed for dramatic effect.
And Finally . . .
Here's a review in The American Spectator of Hugh Hewitt's A Mormon In the White House? The author, Richard Kirk, doesn't add much, but does sum up Hugh's thesis well:
Hewitt's message is that Mitt Romney has become a political canary in the coalmine. If a man of Romney's intellectual and professional stature is taken down simply because of his religious beliefs, others will follow. Permission will have been granted to destroy political opponents across the religious spectrum for believing "weird" things — or perhaps for being excessively moral in the eyes of a skeptical, secular press.
Seems like a good note on which to end the week.
Posted in Reading List, Religious Bigotry | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
CarlH on 11 May 2007 at 7:12 am #
AllahPundit over at Hot Air Blog sarcastically makes the point on what we can only hope is the low point of the 60 Minutes interview with Romney: