Today’s Reading List – June 11, 2007 | Article VI Blog

I'M BACK – after a fashion. Those of you that are Hugh Hewitt listeners know, thanks to Lowell's call last Wednesday – third hour, that my father passed away from injuries suffered in the automotive accident Lowell reported a few weeks ago. Many duties are attendant to such circumstances so it may take me a while to get back up to full speed. Thank you all for the indulgence and encouragement – and thanks to Lowell for having and continuing to pick up the slack.

SALLY DENTON, yet another author to write about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, had an op-ed in the LATimes yesterday. Her analysis is over-simple, her historical citations ancient, or in the Kennedy case, cliched, and the piece ends up being yet another in the long line of pieces written on The Question that is not really a genuine consideration of The Question, but a bit of simple publicity seeking. With the September Dawn movie on the massacre set to be released, I have no doubt that Ms. Denton fears for her book sales. Here is her conclusion:

In the end, it seems less a candidate's religion that concerns Americans and more an apprehension of fundamentalist fanaticism and a fear that the separation of church and state is becoming murky. As for Romney and Mormonism, there seems only one legitimate and relevant question: Do you, like the prophet you follow, believe in a theocratic nation state? All the rest is pyrotechnics.

Take careful note of that paragraph. In it, we see parallels between commonly practiced western religion and the fanatical Islamist beliefs of Al-Qaeda, and we see an argument put forth that can apply equally to Mormonism and many Evangelicals. After all, many creedal Christian leaders have historically attempted to create theocratic states (Oliver Cromwell, John Calvin, this list goes on….)

In the end, in addition to trying to grab some free publicity, what we see here is the standard left-leaning anti-religious screed dressed up in Mormon clothes because in the eyes of the left, it is acceptable to bash Mormonism.

I'm sure Lowell will have some more links for this post later….

Lowell adds: All I can say about Ms. Denton is that she is a non-Mormon writer and a Democrat who lives in Utah and has written a controversial book about the Mountain Meadows atrocity that seeks to tie Brigham Young to the attack. Those are simply facts that need to be taken into account when reading her op-ed. Here's the thesis of her piece:

Are we religious bigots if we refuse to vote for a believing Mormon? Or is it perfectly sensible and responsible to be suspicious of a candidate whose creed seems outside the mainstream or tinged with fanaticism?

I'll bet you can guess how she answers that second question. It's the same thesis Damon Linker advanced in his now-infamous New Republic article. And once again, it comes from the left. We have not seen the end of this.

Elsewhere around the Web

THE NEW YORK TIMES has published an interesting article about how Mormons view Romney's candidacy. Warning: If you are not familiar with Mormon beliefs, this piece may leave you a little confused. Mormons are like anyone else; they have a wide range of political and religious views– including interpretations of their own beliefs. You'll see some of that here– watch for the comment about Mormon beliefs about Christ's Second Coming.

FINALLY, IT LOOKS LIKE 2008 may well be the year of the faith-friendly candidate, or at least more so than ever. Here's a story about how Democrat strategists have realized that their party is seen as hostile to people of faith. (What a startling idea.) Jim Wallis, the center-left pastor who's trying to revive the Democrats' faith credentials, says:

“The Democratic Party is finally becoming open and freer to talk about their faith. They are not keeping religion in the closet,” said Wallis, the founder of the religious-action group Sojourners.

"They talked very personally about their own narrative, about their own spiritual journey, in ways that were quite self-deprecating sometimes, revealing and humble and,” he paused, “authentic.”

Here's what I think this effort will come down to: Generally, religious conservatives are motivated by their religious beliefs as guidelines for personal moral behavior. They do not think government should do anything that discourages moral behavior or encourages immoral behavior. Hence their opposition to abortion; their concern over a "wall of separation" between church and state that pushes religion out of the public square; and their opposition to governmental policies that they believe tend to weaken the family.

Religious liberals, on the other hand, are motivated by their religious beliefs as guidelines for governmental moral behavior. Many, for example, think true religion compels government to impose Great Society-type programs on the citizenry. They don't talk much about personal morality and government's role in supporting such morality or supporting the family (other than in regard to governmental selective financial support of families).

Perhaps in 2008 we will see which view of religion in politics is more appealing to the American electorate.

Share and Enjoy: