Today’s Reading List – June 14, 2007
HAPPY FLAG DAY! (This also happens to be my mother's birthday. She would have been 90 years old this year.)
The Daily Show makes an effort at humor. Warning: This is crude. But it's the kind of thing the left considers simply hilarious. Remember: Conservative religious people do not benefit from any rules of political correctness.
John comments: As tasteless and crude as the piece may be, its primary point is that The Question is just silly, on that level it should be applauded. They are making fun of the media's obsession with Romney's faith – something sorely needed, even if it is needed to be done more skillfully. At least it's a start.
Governor Romney has established for his campaign a national Faith and Values Steering Committee. A number of thought leaders in the evangelical community are on the Committee, including our friends David and Nancy French of Evangelicals for Mitt, and Mark DeMoss, whom we interviewed.
Speaking of Nancy, I cannot resist stealing this bit from her, quoting Bill Beaman in the Reader's Digest:
"Yeah, but he's a Mormon. And that makes him unelectable." So let's see — he's up against one Republican who's supposedly unelectable because he's not a real conservative and another Republican who's unelectable because…umm… oh yeah, he's not a real conservative. And on the Democrats' side, he'd be up against a woman who's said to be unelectable and an African American who's said to be unelectable. Unless we're just going to shut down the White House for four years (tempting, isn't it?), someone's going to prove electable. Might as well be a Mormon.
John adds a bit:
Take special note – this is satire. And while I have not seen anyone take it in any other fashion just yet, I'm betting…. If this issue had not been treated with such deadly seriousness by some MSM sources, it would be extraordinarily funny, but as it is I simply cringe at the thought that some fool of a reporter will take it seriously.
A blogger calls Article VI a "red herring." (HT: SmartChristian) They use the somewhat tired and overstated case that Article VI does not apply to the voting booth. Well, no, duh. But here is the key quote:
If a person likes Romney’s Mormon worldview, then by all means they should exercise that right and vote for him. Those who disagree should (and do) have the same right.
That is absolutely right on, and it is perfectly in line with Article VI of the Constitution. "Worldview" and religion are NOT the same thing. Religion is one of many influences on an individual's worldview. There are creedal Christians whose worldview is platonic and those whose worldview is aristotelian, two schools of thought that predate Jesus. Worldview is a legitimate means of discriminating about candidates, but religion is not, the scope of Article VI notwithstanding.
This limited scope of Article VI argument was the very first one trotted out when we started this blog, and it always comes down to people presuming that religious adherence dictates a worldview. Until someone can make a clear and logical case that being a Mormon mandates a specific and wrong worldview, and more importantly that Mitt Romney, the individual, holds that worldview, the argument is justification for bigotry, and that is all it is.
Consider – laws regarding discrimination against others on racial grounds have a limited scope as well, but is it really OK to think black people are "Ni**^&%" as long as you are willing to hire them? I think such people would be thought of purely as legally compliant bigots, don't you?
Lowell again: John's exactly right. Occasionally, however, the term "worldview" is code for "religious views." The essential point is this: Romney's probable beliefs about the nature of God have not and will not influence his worldview in a manner that affects his actions as a public officeholder.
ATTACK OF THE THEO-NERDS
Sounds like the title of a bad sci-fi movie, doesn't it? But such attacks seem to be a nagging problem, kind of like flies buzzing around a fine horse. Terry Mattingly, who has refined theo-nerdishness to a high art, refers in Get Religion to the New York Times "Romney is not a faithful Mormons" meme that we wrote about yesterday. One of our readers writes in response:
I'd like to see you take [Mattingly] up on his challenge in that article to search his blog for the term "exaltation." [Ed.: "Exaltation" is a term in Mormon theology that has to do with man's eternal potential to be like God someday.] He alleges that it always leads to Mormons disagreeing over doctrine. What it shows to me is that Mattingly is hell-bent on laying a snare for Romney on this issue, and that he can't stop egging on the press to push the issue of "exaltation" = "polytheism."
See also his article on Scripps Howard News Service where he uses Ostling's words to grind his axe:
"People need to know, 'Is this man going to take orders from Salt Lake City? Are there elements of Mormon theology that will affect public policy?' … But before he gets to those questions, Romney may have to say, 'We have different doctrines. We have different scriptures. … We even have different concepts of God.' He has to know that he can't just say, 'We all have the same faith.' That is not going to work."
Richard Ostling is the author of "Mormon America: The Power and The Promise", which Mormon scholars generally consider to be a biased treatment of the church.
Mattingly and Ostling want Romney to explain his religious beliefs, which no presidential candidate has ever done. It seems to me that at bottom, both Mattingly and Ostling are upset about the prospect of a Mormon president and want the doctrinal issues that bother them to be widely discussed. Mattingly and Ostling are the ones that need to make the case for such a precedent-setting public dialogue, led by a presidential candidate. So far neither of them has done so. The theo-nerds have a steep hill to climb.
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Jim Sweeney on 14 Jun 2007 at 2:16 pm #
Did you see this interview with Judith Dushku about Mitt’s historical abortion stances?
Here’s just a small excerpt:
Now as a pro-life Republican, I might be tempted to look at the hyperbole of this interview’s title and discount out of hand anything said by a “radical Democrat”, but if Ms. Dushku’s memory of the conversation is accurate, I’d say this speaks volumes about Mitt’s “world view” or rather the one that he is told he can adopt.
LowellB on 14 Jun 2007 at 4:11 pm #
Jim: Let me just urge you and other readers to keep the following in mind:
1. The alleged conversation took place in 1994. How clearly do you recall conversations you had in 1994?
2. As you note, Ms. Dushku is someone whose favorite cause and favorite candidates benefit from portraying Mitt Romney as not only a flip-flopper but also as someone who takes orders from Salt Lake City. Caution is warranted.
3. You yourself seem quite disposed to believe the negative about Romney, especially as relates to his religion.
4. The subject of Romney taking orders from Salt Lake is a very tired one by now. We have blogged on that subject repeatedly. Do you think Harry Reid takes orders from Salt Lake? Anyway, there is not a shred of evidence that such communication takes place. Romney has categorically stated, in the clearest possible terms, that he has not sought instructions from Salt Lake, that he will not seek instructions, and that he has never gotten instructions, as an elected official, from his church. You are certainly free to choose to believe he is a liar.
5. As a Mormon, I can easily imagine how such a conversation could take place, if it did indeed take place. Romney was a former stake president. During the time (probably nine years) that he served in that very time-consuming and challenging position, he surely would have come into contact with, and become acquainted with, a number of the church’s “general authorities,” who preside over the church. As a neophyte politician he may have realized he would have to take the abortion position he took in 1994 in order to have a chance of actually winning against Ted Kennedy. He would not want to take a position that would affect his standing in the Church, and as a former stake president he probably was concerned about the example he would be setting. So he called someone in a high position to get advice. This is not different than a Catholic politician getting advice from a bishop or cardinal, or an orthodox Christian consulting with his pastor, or a Jewish candidate talking to his rabbi.
And that’s all I have to say about that! Thanks for your comment.
Jim Sweeney on 15 Jun 2007 at 10:30 pm #
1. I clearly remember certain conversations I had when I was in elementary school (I’m 40 now) other conversations I have forgotten completely. It depends entirely on the emotional impact of the conversation, and I have no problem believing that Ms. Dusku is capable of remembering particularly meaningful exchanges from 1994.
2. So you are saying that she is lying or intentionally embellishing the truth. That stands to reason; one of them must be. Or might Romney have failed to recall the 1994 conversation?
3. I don’t view Romney or Mormonism with rose-colored glasses and I wouldn’t vote for him, but I don’t have any negative predisposition about his morals or character. With regard to lying, you may know of a Romney quote that directly contradicts Ms. Dushku, but in the absence of one, I’m perfectly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
4. You may be tired of defending Romney on this issue, but I think you’ll find that readily apparent truth has enormous staying power. I don’t imagine that Reid or Romney have red hotlines in their home enabling them to “take orders” from Salt Lake, but let’s face the fact that the LDS church tries very hard to hold its members to a monolithic set of doctrines and guidelines for behavior that defines its public face. Combine that with Ms. Dusku’s recollections and we have what amounts to considerably more than a “shred” of evidence.
And 5. Well, you actually argue the point for me
Undoubtedly true, and as we get further into the campaign, Romney is steadfastly holding up the value of his standing in the Church with an eye toward being a much greater example than he has ever been before. I just think it is naive to insist that LDS leaders in “high position” will have no input when it comes to deciding policy. If Ms. Dusku is to be believed, Romney didn’t merely say that the brethren advised him toward a particular stance, but that they told him what position he could take. This implies (if her recollection is accurate) that they could have disallowed the position.