Article VI Blog

Yesterday's entry in The Boston Globe's Romney profile series is nothing short of outrageous. One of the longest stories I have ever read about Mitt Romney in any outlet devotes but 20% of its total content to Mitt Romney himself, choosing instead to tell in excruiating detail the story of his polygamous ancestors. And then, finally in the last few paragraphs turning to Romney himself, though dedicating most of its coverage to his mission in France, they print the following:

On the campaign trail, he angered some Mormons by denouncing the church's history of plural marriage, saying on CBS's 60 Minutes, ''I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy.''

I'm no Mormon (sadly Lowell is on vacation with limited internet access - I hope he can chime in on this one) but I have yet to encounter a Mormon that disagreed with Romney's 60 Minutes comment. The Mormons I know all accept polygamy as God's will for their church at that time, but they are equally adamant that they are grateful they no longer have such a mandate.

This story seems clearly intended to me to make it seem as if Mormons still support polygamy and as if Romney's long dead ancestors incriminate him personally in that practice.

For the record, my family has a long, storied, and now very old, history of slave ownership in the deep South. Am I therefore implicated in their behavior?

What is saddest of all, however, is that Romney's mission service was quite formative in his character, as was chronicled in Hugh Hewitt's book. While I disagree with the theology that mission served, I also understand the good character that service can develop in and of itself, regardless of the particulars being served. But instead of emphasizing that angle the Globe choses to use the mission as a reason to bring up at immense length , long dead practices of the LDS.

This is a hit piece of the worst order, designed to smear a man with practices not his own - designed to paint him as some sort of hyper-religious freak.

Naked partisanship coupled with a general bias against religion, further coupled with a particular and virulent bias against Mormonism make for a pretty ugly picture.

Lowell chimes in from vacation: As a life-long and continuously practicing Mormon I can confirm that no one among my co-religionists– no one– longs for the days of polygamy. (In a church of 12 million there must be some oddballs somewhere who do, but I've never met anyone like that.) So when Romney said ''I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy,'' virtually every Mormon listening understood exactly what he meant. The consensus among us is: we believe it was a commandment from God; we cannot imagine how difficult it was to live that law; and we are glad it is not required of us. I imagine the Israelites of the Old Testament who came after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's time felt the same way.

That ugly picture continues, though somewhat less outrageously in today's piece in the profile series. Ostensibly about his immediate family, the piece traces his political career as well. The discussions of the role of Romney's faith in his family life are simply ham-fisted. They aren't really bigoted against Mormonism per se as they are against religion in general. It seems obvious to me that the reporters just don't get people who grant faith an important place in their life.

But when it gets to the political stuff, there is one just flat out lie.

About a month before the election, Kennedy launched his most devastating attack. On the airwaves, he strafed Romney with tough ads designed to turn his greatest asset of business success into a vulnerability. Romney's Bain Capital had bought a paper company called American Pad & Paper, or Ampad, which then bought an Indiana plant and laid off workers, cut wages, and reduced benefits. The workers began striking. Seizing on Romney's candidacy, they brought their complaints to Massachusetts.

The Ampad attacks did hurt Romney in his Senate run, but they were certainly not the "most desvastating." That distinction involved Kennedy's use of the "Mormon card," something the Boston Globe failed to mention altogether. Speaking of which, we here at Article Six tried to reach Mary Jo Kopechne for comment, but found her unavailable.

Elsewhere:

Brother in understanding John Mark Reynolds writes on Patriotism and the Christian Soul. An excellent primer on what it means to be a Christian in a democratic west.

The religion writer cum blogger at U.S. News goes where virtually everyone has gone before on The Question.

Nancy French of Evangelicals For Mitt fame had a nice NewsMax op-ed over last weekend. Sadly, one of her EFM co-bloggers Charles Mitchell reports that her piece is being re-transmitted through cyber space "with modifications." This is nothing short of despicable. I am well aware that there are many creedal Christians out there who feel that disagreement with Mormons is insufficient, that their concerns rise to the level of animus. However, I wonder if they realize that in warping and misrepresenting and even fabricating the stance and ideas of their brother and sister creedal Christians they commit the very sin they accuse in Mormons? Such things serve only to destroy one's own credibility.

Sphere: Related Content

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