Article VI Blog

Gov. Romney has in the past been fond of quoting Abraham Lincoln's concept of a "civil religion," when it comes to the differences and especially the lack of differences between faiths in our nation. He rightly says that we desire in our public officials some adherence to that civil religion, if not our individual, sacred, theology-based religion. I agree with him fully on that thought and it seems to me that one important hallmark of that civil religion would be simple civility in public discourse.

In that light, compare the comments of John McCain when confronted with Romney's comments on the pending immigration deal (via The Corner) with Romney's response to Sen. McCain's comments (via Hugh Hewitt who also carries McCain's original swipe) — Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Speaking of civil religion, some interesting thoughts on same from the Action Institute.

At USAToday, Dan Gilgoff wonders about how Christians define the term and its political consequences. This may be one of the least helpful, non-attack, major outlet pieces I have seen on this subject yet. The definition question is better left for the seminarians and as to its political consequences - there simply should not be any. I cannot help but think that once again we are back to the media phenomenon - it's way past what the electorate is thinking about.

Lowell: Gilgoff's piece does highlight one interesting aspect of this issue, I think: By widely using a specialized definition of an otherwise commonly-understood word, thereby casting Mormonism in what Mormons see as a terribly false light, many orthodox Christians have confused and inflamed the discussion– whether they intend to or not. We've been talking about this for a long time, for example here and here.

Speaking of the media phenomena, Christianity Today "reviews" a conference that was in Florida last week ostensibly to help journalists have knowledge to cover faith. John Wilson reaches some good and some not so good conclusions:

From an evangelical viewpoint, what was most interesting about Richard Bushman's session was the overlap between skepticism about Mormons (remember the question: are Mormonism and democratic politics compatible?) and skepticism about evangelicals and Catholics, as expressed in a host of books and articles and op-ed pieces in the last year. Jacob Weisberg's widely quoted piece from Slate, in which he said that someone who believes what Romney believes lacks the "capacity" to hold the highest office in our country, reminded me of similar judgments in the past about women: they are very good at other things, you see, but they lack a certain "rational capacity" that is the birthright of males. (By the way, doesn't it follow from Weisberg's statement that Mormons should be denied the vote, as women long were?) In this vein it's interesting to note how, running on a very different track from the jokes about polygamy, there's a vein of disdainful commentary that seeks to dismiss Mormons by feminizing them—a tactic that may be potent precisely because it is so politically incorrect, and often in contradiction to the stated pieties of the very people it's pitched to. Romney as a candidate? That won't be newsworthy much longer: he has no chance at the nomination. But the issues raised in connection with his candidacy will continue to be relevant, and not just for Mormons.

Romney has no chance? Don't know what political news Mr. Wilson is reading, but I sure ain't seeing that. As to the issues being relevant to more than Mormons? Durn tootin'. I think we have been saying that for a while now.

Dennis Byrne, in the Chicago Tribune, lets go with both barrels at Mike Wallace's chastity question to the Romney's a while back.

Oh, you mean as in: Lots of people have an "issue" with Mormonism because it — as do many religions, millions of Americans and social commentators — opposes pre- and extramarital sex.

Byrne has a heck of a point there. Wallace's question was not just a shot at Mormonism, it was shot at conservatism in general, especially religiously supported conservatism. There's support for that thesis of ours again. If we let them get away with this about the Mormons, we're next, fellow Evangelicals.

We reported yesterday that James Dobson may be softening his earlier remarks a bit. David Brody seems to agree and suggests:

If I were Romney, I would travel to Colorado Springs, have lunch with the good doctor, attend a chapel service and then go see a private screening of "Passion of the Christ" with him.

Uh, David, I know you hear the same rumors I do. If they are to be believed, while the details may differ, that's a meeting that happened months ago. But one commentator apparently did not hear Dr. Dobson on Laura Ingraham last Friday. The guy is right about quite a few things in the piece, but his tone sort of disqualifies him from serious consideration. And there we are back at that whole civility thing again.

Sphere: Related Content

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