Today’s Reading List – May 31, 2007 | Article VI Blog

An NPR Take on The Question

MY LOCAL NPR AFFILIATE here in Los Angeles, KCRW, ran a 30-minute "Which Way, L.A.?" program this evening. The advertising blurb:

Nearly forty-seven years after John F. Kennedy tackled the religion question in his successful bid for the presidency, a candidate’s religion is once again emerging as a significant campaign issue. Can Republican Mitt Romney make voters comfortable with the fact that he’s a practicing mormon?

You can listen to or download the program here. I recommend you do so; it was really a terribly interesting discussion. Guests included Dan Gilgoff, Richard Lyman Bushman, Alex Beam, and a spokesman for the National Association of Evangelicals (I could not catch is name). There were a few interesting nuggets:

The argument of Alex Beam, who is a Boston Globe reporter, as to why Romney's Mormonism was not a problem when he ran in Massachusetts, but would be in a national campaign (paraphrasing):

Massachusetts voters are sophisticated and well-educated and tolerant. The rest of the country just . . . isn't that way. "I'm skeptical that a Mormon can be our next president."

Oh, please. Can you say, "out-of-touch MSM condescension?"

A number of other howlers by Alex Beam, who confidently stated that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Church") prefers to be called "LDS." Well, no. A reporter who covers the Church should know that. He also stated that Mormons do not believe the Bible is the word of God. Wrong again. Please do not trust these people to tell you what Mormons believe!

Bushman rightly observing that no single individual, let alone Romney, can "explain Mormonism," because that's "too big a job for anyone to do," and no presidential candidate has ever explained his or her religion.

The host, Sara Terry, referring to Romney's "personal beliefs" as "outside the American mainstream." Well, maybe she meant "outside the mainstream of American religious beliefs." I mean, there is a gulf, but it's not quite that bad.

The evangelical spokesman's statement that Evangelicals believe faith and action cannot be separated. John? (The spokesman seemed to me to do a fine job of explaining the complexity of Evangelical views on the matter, but did think Romney needs to answer questions about Mormonism.)

John answers the call (briefly): I am moving from LA back to Mississippi to be with my father today – time does not permit me to listen to the piece let alone answer the question Lowell poses here in detail, so allow me some brief generic comments. Traditional Christian theology is all over the map when it comes to the question faith and action from "without action there can be no faith" to "faith alone." Evangelicalism, as a movement in traditional Christianity, has strongly emphasized faith first, until very recently in historical terms. In general, most Evangelicals believe that genuine faith will result in personal action. Like all faiths, some do it with more passion and committment than others. The key difference between Mormons, as far as I have read, and Evangelicals here is a very fine point about the role of action in salvation and/or redemption. That is way too theological for this blog – and would require a book to lay out properly.

The Globe's Beam, true to his MSM perspective, really, really wants Romney to talk about his Mormon beliefs in detail.

Gilgoff's observation that McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson have said nary a word about how their faith informs their public policy views.

Folks, the national discussion about these things is going to continue for a while yet.

Religious Bigotry, cont'd (still!)

The New York Post has a little more to say about the rude Clinton supporter in New Hampshire who told Romney he'd never vote for a Mormon. Memorably titled "Anti-Mormon Moron's Big Fit at Mitt," the story adds that a Clinton campaign spokesman said, "We strongly disagree with these comments." The story also perpetuates the notion that the man "shouted" at Romney. Haven't these MSM folks watched the video yet?

Miscellany

DOES THE MSM over-simplify the Evangelical world? Who'd have thought such a thing?

Captain's Quarters reports on Ed's "shadowing" of Romney's campaigning in Iowa. Not a mention of religion!

What does the Catholic Church have to say about Catholic politicians who endorse legislation in conflict with Church teaching? According to this First Things author, quite a lot.

The Moderate Voice takes The Question to a new level:

Questions over Romney’s religion constitute a bizarre dilemma for Republican primary voters that, when combined with Rudy Giuliani’s equally challenging candidacy sharing the top of Republican primary polls, potentially promises a wracking and long overdue internal debate over the identity of the Republican coalition.

Read the whole thing. The comments are interesting, too.

John comments: I have to disagree with his framing of the issue. There is little question that a Romney nomination will alter the contours of power inside the Republican party, but that is true for virtually every candidate that comes along. But at its heart the party is conservative first, Evangelical second, or third, or fourth – I'm not sure. Some Evangelicals may have gotten a little "big for their britches" during the current administration, but that kind of reordering is par for the course in any election cycle. I think this piece is overly dramatic.

I also want to take exception to his presentation of blatant and even violent anti-Mormon action historically. I do not deny its reality, but it was 100 years ago, just as were the "sins" of the LDS (e.g. polygamy). There are certainly religiously based anti-Mormon forces out there and they definitely chose to hold the religious competition in ways that I would not and do not condone; however, those methods, generally, do not stretch outside the bounds of rhetoric. That our religions compete for converts is undeniable and natural, and will never, nor should never change. Tying the rhetorical of today to the violence of yesteryear is not different than tying the polygamists of yesteryear to the wonderful citizens Mormons are today. It is simply unhelpful.