Today’s Reading List – June 13, 2007 | Article VI Blog

THERE IS A NEW MEME developing regarding The Question that really crosses the line. That meme is to question the depth, sincerity, and reality of Romney's personal Mormon faith. It seems to have started with the Sally Denton LATimes piece we looked at Monday. The theo-nerds have jumped all over it and an NYTimes piece we looked at that same date and drawn some interesting, and completely irrelevant conclusions. Here is one example and here another. Even the usually smart and even-handed David Brody seems to be joining in the "fun," although from a slightly different angle.

And if that is not enough, a similar attack seems to be underway at John McCain. Far be it from me to defend John McCain as a candidate, but these attacks and discussions are just purely and simply out-of-bounds.

Thoughtful people will no doubt point to stories that have been written about Guiliani and his Catholicism, but there is one VERY ciritical difference – officials of the Roman Catholic Church are openly discussing the ecclesiastical ramifications of Catholic candidates taking position that differ from Church teaching. That is to say, it is not amateurs questioning Rudy's faith and religions, but the leadership of the church to which he subscribes. Church leaders are supposed to do that.

I don't know John McCain, so I cannot even begin to comment on his personal faith or faith expresssions, nor should anyone else, but the discussion about him in this light are not all that different than The Question. McCain is decidely not Evangelical, but it is about time my Evanglical brethren figured out that Evanglicalism is not the only expression of Christianity. Forgive me while I get very personal – my extremely recently deceased father was not Evangelical either, he was raised Lutheran and was a Presbyterian as an adult. When I was a very young Christian, I doubted his faith because he did not express it in the way I thought it was supposed to be expressed. Thankfully, I have grown up and was able to watch my father die with confidence in his eternal destination. Jesus Christ manifested in my father's life in ways so profound that they defy description. Anybody who wants to deal in this stuff should save it for Sunday School class and get over themselves.

As to Romney – I am definitively not qualified to discuss stuff this deep inside Mormonism, which is the point – neither are any of the others commenting on it, they are not Mormons. If LDS President/prophet Gordon Hinckley, or the Apostles, have problems with Romney's expression of his faith, like the Catholic leadership and Guiliani, it is their job to talk about, but it is most certainly not ours. Besides, what difference does any of it make in how Romney would govern as President?

Lowell adds: Maybe a Mormon perspective will help. First, the only person who knows the depth of any Mormon's conviction and faithfulness is that Mormon himself. (This is like any other faith. Big suprise.) Second, there is a fairly wide range of "devoutness" among Mormons on many issues. (Another similarity to all other faiths.) Just pick five Mormons and ask them about Sabbath observance. You'll get five slightly different answers about their personal and family practices on Sundays. But such matters have little to do with whether anyone is considered a faithful Mormon. Third, that Romney has been a bishop and a stake president in his church, and fairly recently, is a very stong sign that he takes his religion very seriously indeed. Now, it has occasionally been the case that even men holding such high positions later weaken in their faithfulness, so one never knows. Even so, I strongly suspect that by comparison, the commitment to personal convictions of most of those who raise these silly questions about Romney could not personally hold a candle to his commitment.

But, as John asks: Why does it matter? It doesn't. An adage comes to mind: The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

IN OTHER NEWS, a small Massachusetts paper surveys The Question and is far more even-handed than the usual MSM tripe.

An Assemblies of God pastor out of Florida sounds what is becoming a familiar note:

The issue, as I see it, is not about whether a Christian would or should vote for a Mormon. That's confusing categories.

He goes on to emphasize the theological distinctives, something not entirely productive in a political discussion, but at least he gets the basics right.

I MUST CONFESS a little consternation at uber-blogger James Taranto of WSJ's Best Of The Web Today. On Monday, in an item on religious texts he says:

The idea of the government making theological judgments–picking and choosing religious books, or favoring one religion over another–is dicey. But in certain contexts, it is necessary.

But in the very next item he quotes both a fund-raising letter from Tagg Romney announcing a lottery for MLB tickets and the LDS websites' comments on gambling – thus back-handedly joining the meme I berate above. Come on, James!

Lowell: All I can say is, Oh, please!

FINALLY, out of the UK, another completely unenlightening review of The Question.

Share and Enjoy: