Today’s Reading List: May 14, 2007
The "60 Minutes" InterviewTHE VIDEO is available here. Those who expected Romney to make a significant statement on his Mormonism were disappointed. Most of the 20-minute segment was about his background and about political issues. He did say that polygamy is "troubling" to him, and elaborated:
"I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert. And so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy.''
That's a view that places him right in the middle of a big group of Modern Mormons (including me) who see the history the same way.
The CBS site includes clips that were not broadcast, including expanded comments by Romney on polygamy and an affecting segment covering Romney's views on his church's former policy of withholding its lay priesthood from blacks.
John comments: Given the pasting Mike Wallace took over that dumb question last week, I am not the least bit surprised that anything beyond those two "classics" of Mormon questioning are buried in an edit bay somewhere. Maybe the press is learning.
Time Magazine's Cover Story
AS A KIND OF WARM-UP, the intrepid Hugh Hewitt interviewed Nancy Gibbs of Time Magazine Friday. Transcript here. It's an essential companion piece to Time's cover story, due to hit the newsstands today. Here are two of Hugh's questions:
Justin Hart who blogs at My Man Mitt had two questions, which he posted on his blog today, which I think are good. Can you point to a single religious view that Mormons hold that would directly call into question Mitt’s fitness for office? [snip]
What about . . . what Justin calls the Weisberg principle of nuttiness . . . did [Weisberg] apply it to Harry Reid or Congressmen or Councilmen or dog catchers? Does he limit it? I’m looking at Harry Reid on Fox News as we speak. Does anyone ask Harry Reid these questions? Right now, he’s far more powerful than Mitt Romney.
Nancy Gibbs' answers are here. The entire interview is a must-read.
John adds: I leafed through Time in O'Hare airport yesterday where apparently they stocked the shelves a bit early. I did not have time to read it in detail, but it looks to me like the Gibbs piece, which we commented on extensively on Friday is about it on religion.
The Sharpton Slur – The End of This Chapter?
WEEKEND REPORTS ARE that Al Sharpton has apologized for his comments suggesting Mormons don't really believe in God, and that he will visit LDS Church leaders in Salt Lake City in the near future. I guess we should give Sharpton the benefit of the doubt, but my cynical side expects his trip to Utah to be more about getting publicity for Al Sharpton him than healing any wounds or promoting understanding.
One of our readers notes, more optimistically:
All in all, Romney will come out of this looking good. Because of Sharpton's original gaffe (or slur, depending on how one prefers to see it), Romney had an opportunity to confront the bigotry issue head-on. But he got to do so in a confrontation with Al Sharpton, not with anyone revered as a leader of the religious right or even with a respectable mainstream liberal.
Notably, all the Evangelical leaders I have seen interviewed during this fracas have rallied around the anti-bigotry principles enunciated by Romney. Interestingly, Ralph Reed refused to bite on Anderson Cooper's aggressive questioning Wednesday night and even express an opinion about whether Mormons are Christians.
The Anderson Cooper interview of Ralph Reed and James Carville is worth reading. You'll need to scroll down a bit on the transcript to find that segment.
Is Religious Bigotry Limited to The Left?
AS WE HAVE NOTED many times here, all the high-profile attacks on Romney's religion have come from the left. That doesn't mean people on the right have been quiet. An Article VI reader writes:
Just because there is anti-Mormon bigotry from the secular left does not mean there is no significant anti-Mormon bigotry from the religious right.
While the most "high profile" Evangelical leaders do not make such attacks, and some even decry them, second-stringers and anonymous players do plenty of dirty work. The Evangelical community is obviously not monolithic. Describing only the "high profile" leaders does not describe the beliefs or behavior of the Evangelical population, and years of anti-Mormon "cult" propaganda are just too pervasive to be overcome by the polite behavior of national leaders.
As one example, our reader gives this article from a South Carolina newspaper. The lead:
Less than a week before the Republican presidential primary debate in Columbia, a wave of anti-Mormon literature has hit select South Carolina mailboxes.
This is about the kind of dirty campaigning typical in primary races, but this time religion is one of the targets. We've been expecting this kind of thing, and I think it will get worse before it gets better.
More about such things here in an interesting Deseret News article.
Here's another example. I think McCullough's piece is downright silly, but my real problem with this stuff is that it opens the door to bashing Romney because of his faith.
John comments: While we are at it, don't forget this whopper. There has always been, and sadly always will be bigotry, and those that try to profit from it. The KKK still exists, that should not be forgotten. What we are seeing is two things here, I believe.
First, people like Keller, who I linked to, are trying to "ride the publicity wave." They are taking advantage of the huge press to gain people for their "group." They don't care about the nation or political power – they care about getting a few more donations, and they will take them from the bigots. Such people are hangers-on, media leeches, and they are beneath notice as far as I am concerned.
Lowell notes: Keller claims to have 2.4 million e-mail subscribers. I hate to link to his trashy writing, but it needs to be noted.
The other, people like McCullough are, I think setting themselves up to support Romney, in the context of a constituency that is generally too small minded to ever be nice to Mormonism. Because Mormonism and creedal Christianity are very different, there is a significant group of people that will always look at it with a level of mistrust – they just can't let go of it. But most of these people can fall short of bigotry if a space is created for them to distrust Mormons, but vote for Romney. That is done by emphasizing the distinctives, establishing the boundaries, and then crossing them in appropriate places.
To my Mormon friends that I know want just to be thought of as "normal," that is going to be hard. It means that Romney would be elected in spite of his faith, which would therefore logically remain somewhat "abnormal." I have drawn the analogy before to the first blacks to seek public office in the South in the later '60's. The working relationship was highly strained and bigotry still ran very high. We are a couple of generations later and things have improved tremendously, but some borders and ill-will remain.
I do not think this election, even a Romney victory, will produce the "normalization" of Mormonism. Sorry, friends. That is a process that will take several more generations. But Romney's participation in the election and more a victory, would be a giant step in that direction. Just remember, patience is a virtue that both of our faiths share.
Lowell adds: Not surprisingly, I see this a little differently. It would be a mistake to assume that American Mormons (and that's all we are talking about here) crave the approval of the likes of Pastore, McCullough, and even Keller. So if that's what "normal" means, we don't need or want it. It is more important to us that our message be understood than that we be popular. We would also like to be free of discrimination in the normal activities of life, such as graduate degree programs, employment, and yes, running for office, but I think most of us recognize that may never occur. This humble blog is simply an effort to generate intelligent discussion and commentary about that one issue: When, if ever, do beliefs become relevant to a candidate's fitness for office?
Odds and Ends
DANIEL PULLIAM at GetReligion continues to be upset that in major press coverage of Romney's campaign, "there is no discussion of serious theological issues." As before, Pulliam insists that those issues should be campaign issues:
If they are affecting a major presidential candidate’s campaign, then yes they are issues. Of course Romney could make it easier on reporters and address them front and center akin to John F. Kennedy, but apparently that’s not likely to happen anytime soon.
That's an interesting bootstrap argument. If Pulliam is right, then I guess that applies to other campaigns as well. For example, if pundits constantly ask whether Rudy Guiliani is presently taking Catholic communion, that presumably affects Rudy's campaign. Is the question then a legitimate issue for journalistic inquiry that Giuliani must address?
Pulliam has been making this argument for some time, by the way; he might consider that the only theological issue John Kennedy addressed was whether as president he would be controlled by the Vatican. Pulliam wants Romney to discuss a whole lot more than whether he will be controlled by Salt Lake City.
John adds: No candidate has ever discussed theology. Even Jimmy Carter's regrettable "lust in his heart" Playboy interview fell short of that mark. There are many in my faith tradition that spend their lives discussing theology. Tiny little obscure points that no one cares about but them. It is natural such people would want theology discussed in the context of a presidential campaign. It is a ticket out of the theological geekdom into the limelight. All I can say is we all have our geek burdens to bear. Ask me about comic books sometime! Should Romney have to answer "DC v. Marvel?" Should he have to comment on the recent assassination of Captain America? Give me a break.
BTW, I think the Kennedy speech has now become some sort of politico-religious talisman that everybody knows about, but nobody has read. READ IT PEOPLE!
DID YOU KNOW Mitt Romney has "impressive odds of 7 to 1 of becoming the next U.S. president?" (I know, that's unrelated to Article VI, but I thought it was fascinating that people keep track of such things.)
John's final o&e: John Mark Reynolds proves that great minds think alike! Remember this?
Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
ich dien on 14 May 2007 at 8:27 am #
Lowell noted that “We would also like to be free of discrimination in the normal activities of life, such as graduate degree programs, employment . . . ” The only time I ever was challenged in employment because of my affiliation with the LDS Church was when I was seeking admission to a position as a Counter-Intelligence Corps Special Agent in the USArmy. One of the members of the review board posited the situation that I was assigned surveillance of an Army officer and he went into a bar and began a long spell of drinking. I had to follow him w/o revealing my identity. How would I do that and avoid the exposure that would come if I refused to drink? I said something about ordering a drink, and asking for non-alcholic mixers and nursing the mixers as long as possible. It must have satisfied them, ’cause I spent the next three wonderful years in that “James Bond” kind of service.