"If Romney comes to visit, we simply must write a story with the religious angle."  At least that is what I imagine the editor saying to produce the linked piece.  This one is worse than average for this stuff.  It is obvious that it was written by somebody at a desk that picked up a press release and made a couple of phone calls.

This is a clear sign of a couple of things to my mind.  First the press really does feel an LDS story is obligatory when Romney comes up - why I have no idea, but it has become the apparent conventional wisdom.  It is particularly baffling when the story is as uninformative as this one.  Secondly, the editors know there is no there, there, so they are putting less resources towards meeting the perceived obligation.  Eventually, I have to think the obligation will no longer be felt which means the press' predetermined narrative about Romney will have fallen by the wayside.  Which will leave it up to the opposition to try and keep it alive, which may be when it gets really ugly.

ABCNews; however, has a piece for the 3rd day in a row.  I cannot help but think the flood of stuff coming from them in recent days has been sitting on a shelf somewhere waiting for some Romney opponent, in this case Brownback, to raise the issue and thus avoid the appearance of trying to establish a narrative - Since somebody else brought it up, it's now officially reporting.  All I can say is, if it was actually reporting there would be something there besides what's been there in every story written in the last year.

Also in the wake of Brownback's staffer slip and apology, which should end it, David Brody decides to go Theo-nerd. 

Let's forget for a moment the fact that this e-mail was sent. Brownback has apologized and that's that.

Why?  Please tell me why David?  That's the whole point - ANYTHING else is just stirring the pot and making an issue where there is none.  But no, Brody has to off and respond to all the emails he has gotten from Theo-nerdville

The larger issue is this idea in the e-mail that states, "The LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith."

The banality of that assertion is astonishing.  Jesus is an historical figure - a person who existed.  There were not two guys that ran around Israel, under Rome, preached the Sermon on the Mount, that were crucified and resurrected, by the name of "Jesus."  The same person in history is venerated by Mormons and creedals alike.  What is different is how those two relgions interpret the nature and ministry of that historical figure.  In other words Mormons and creedals have different theology.

A late afterthought:  Besides who are we to say who is Jesus and who is not Jesus?  He is and was who He is and was, our thoughts, interpretations, and conventions about Him notwithstanding.  We don't decide who Jesus is, Jesus decides who Jesus is.  We do our best to discern who He is and was, but that is all it is - our best - which may or may not rise to the level of actuality.  Thus endth my trip to Theo-nerdville, and it is a pretty deep one too.  Now back to where we were.

AND NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH MITT ROMNEY'S CAPABILITY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  If it must be gotten into at all, what matters is what behaviors and attitudes those differing theologies produce, and in the case of creedal Christian and Mormon theologies, the results are remarkably similar.

Let me put it to you this way, it makes no difference in the operation of your motor vehicle if it is electric, hybrid, or fully internal combustion.  You push the pedal, you turn the wheel, you go where you need to go.  There is remarkably different science and enginnering under the hood of those vehicles, but from the standpoint of daily operation they are the same.  And so it is with theology and the presidency.  Romney will have a different service and maintenance routine than someone else, but he will drive just the same.

Meanwhile, out of Florida,

Romney, who has frequently answered questions about his Mormon faith, said Monday he was considering tactics to put the religion issue to rest, though he didn’t elaborate.

Great idea Mitt!  But it should not require tactics to begin with in the American system.

Slate, home of the now infamous Jacob Weisburg pure bigotry piece, clearly has it in for Romney.  The author of ths piece is a pure Democratic operative.  It is an attack of the "too perfect" variety, made notable to this blog because of this absolute whopper:

His speaking role is awkward and mercifully short. He soldiers through grace, commemorating the birth of Jesus and managing to avoid the looming evangelical-Mormon split over His return by not adding, "See you in Missouri!"

The Democrats have a vested interest in driving a wedge between Romney and Evangelicals, they hope to defeat the most conservative candidate in the race and they hope to pick up a few Evangelical votes themselves.  Thus they use theology to political ends.  What's worse?  Differing theology or using theology for means other than it was intended?  One is a disagreement the other a perversion.  Think about it.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

The Brownback Campaign's Low Blow Misses; the MSM Keeps Replaying It

Silly me.  I thought the story about the Brownback staffer who tried to start a whisper campaign was over.  Brownback himself called Romney and apologized, after all.

Whoops.

ABC did a story on the story.

Newsbusters covered ABC's story about the story.

ABC reported, "There are other Mormon beliefs that may provoke uncomfortable questions for Mitt Romney."  Looks like ABC is one organization that's going to make sure those questions get asked.  And answered.  And asked.  And answered.  Ad nauseum.

John adds: Interestingly and relatedly, James Taranto of Best of the Web Today fame did a video commentary on some comments by Michael Bloomberg on science vs. religion and proudly proclaims dismissiveness about religion as bigoted.  In this case, Taranto is not discussing anything even vaguely specific about religion, but just things that virtually all religions hold - the existence of a supernatural, creation by that supernature.

It is amazing on how little agreement there is between commentators on what constitutes bigotry against religion.  ABC News seems to thing it OK to discuss the specific beliefs of a specific religion, while Taranto thinks even basic, non-specific, religious tenants are out-of-bounds.  Could it be that it is less about religion and more about political agendas?

I think so and it is one of the primary reason I am passionate about this blog.  Religion is rapidly becoming an instrument of politics in this nation, that's bad for politics because identity politics is simply antithetical to the American ideal and it is bad for religion because it reduces religion to the label.

WaPo on The Question 

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza says he wants to know

whether Romney's Mormonism is a legitimate campaign issue or a private matter. In other words, are the specifics of Romney's faith important for voters to hear in order to make an informed decision when assessing the Republican presidential candidates?

Sound off in the comments section below. We'll pluck a few of the most thoughtful and insightful and give them their own post later this week.

We wish Cillizza would read our blog.  But go ahead and read the comments here, and add your own. 

John comments: Cillizza shows what may be the largest motivation behind The Question - money.  I do not know how to put it more bluntly than that.  The Question draws eyeballs, to TV, newpapers, and blogs (well, except for this blog whose daily readership is quite moderate, I imagine because we are a bit too reasonable about the whole thing).  Why in the world would he attempt to reinvigorate a question that has been asked and answered hundreds of times now - not just by this blog, but by books, talk radio, TV, etc.?

Answer - as long as people are interested in The Question, their eyeballs will wander to whomever is discussing it and that "who" will claim some advertising dollars.  It is becoming a bit naked though, which is usually a sign that the saturation point has just about been reached.   CIlizza does not even pretend to offer a new angle. - *sigh*

Elsewhere Around The Web

The New York Times blog explores the "Romney's too perfect" theme.  This will bother voters on the left, I suppose, who seem oddly uncomfortable with people who strive to meet a high standard of personal and family behavior; those on the right will by and large admire Romney's family.

Hotline summarizes Mormonism 101 on the Web.

Barack Obama perfectly embodies the difference between Left and Right on the role of religion in the public square:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama insisted Saturday that religious faith can play a central role in politics, but only if it's used to tackle moral issues and not to divide the nation.

Those moral issues, the U.S. senator from Illinois said, include fighting poverty, expanding health insurance access and ending the war in Iraq.

Agree or disagree, the distinction between that view of religion and the more conservative  view couldn't be clearer.  But isn't Obama saying, in essence, that God is on his side?  Isn't that what  . . . .

John cannot resist quipping:  Isn't it somewhere in the book of Habbakuk that says "Thou shalt hijack a huge percentage of your economy and socialize it for the sake of providing health care to a percentage of the population that cannot afford it?"

Before I am accused of lacking compassion, my point is a simple one: The presence of religion in the political arena requires thought, not labelling.  To claim something as a political imperative, based on religion, one must pass through reason - something sorely lacking in so many of the discussion like this.

And Finally . . . 

One of our readers, Russ, has read that John and I are friends, and e-mails us a question:

Evangelicalism and Mormonism are mutually exclusive.  One or both of you must be unaware of your religious tenets.  How can this be? 

I think Russ's tongue is firmly in his cheek, but it is a good question.  Maybe the answer is that both John and I grew up reading Marvel Comics?   John: Excelsior! - 'Nuff Said.  And why the past tense?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

After a very busy weekend, items worthy of the reading list were a bit scarce Monday. Still, one of our readers offered some provocative thoughts about our view that the most vicious and high-profile religious bigotry against Mitt Romney has come, and will come, from the Left.

Our reader thinks we are underestimating the extent of evangelical bigotry:

With respect, I think both Lowell and John are still knocking down a straw man. Both readily concede that some evangelicals will oppose Romney on religious grounds. We all know that it easy to find anecdotal anti-Mormon bigotry from these quarters. But we also have a polling data that suggest the numbers to be significant. It is all a question of degree.

 

Both bloggers assert that the degree is not enough to meet some straw man criteria — not one of "large numbers" (Lowell's term), or "elections are won by majorities" (John's). At other times, both have cast the issue to be one of whether there is more bigotry from the left than the right, which is an utter non sequitur.

 

I suggest that, objectively, it is not necessary to reach any of these straw man levels to show that prejudice is significant. There does not have to be a majority of evangelicals that are prejudiced, or even a plurality. What ultimately matters is the marginal difference it makes in an election, and elections often turn on a few percentage points. And in venues such as the South Carolina primary, it may be more than just a few.

 

Time will tell. But meanwhile, denial is not such a good thing.

To be clear: I don't know how John sees this, but I think there is statistically significant prejudice (bigotry) against Romney among a group of evangelicals who are "hard core" anti-Mormons, for reasons of malice, misinformation, and yes, sincere and (to them) principled belief. As Hugh Hewitt stated in his book, Romney does have a Mormon problem– and so does the rest of the country, the problem cannot be wished away:

This vision [that Mormonism is a] 'cult' is difficult to square with the sunny Mormons one encounters at Boy Scout jamborees, on city councils across the land, or in the professions and business. But for those who do not know any Mormons, or at least not that well, this background music dominates the attitude they bring to the idea of a Mormon candidate for the presidency … [W]hat Romney confronts is the widespread attachment of the term "cult" to his religious beliefs. This is a political problem of the first order.

Do I have hard evidence of significant evangelical bigotry? No; no one really does. But Romney's polling numbers, although strong in New Hampshire and Iowa, are so consistently low in South Carolina, even without Fred Thompson in the race, and Evangelical/Baptist population there so high, that at least part of the explanation for the low poll numbers has to be religious bias. Unless something extraordinary occurs, he's not going to do well there, especially with Southerner Fred Thompson in the race.

But, but . . . I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me that this problem will keep Romney from getting a fair shot at the Republican nomination. I do think it will cost him a strong showing in South Carolina (and the liberal news media may make much of that).

Even so, when I consider this question, I always come back to the five high-profile attacks on Romney so far:  Jacob Weisberg, Damon Linker, Garry South, Kenneth Woodward, and Al Sharpton.  All are from the left.  It seems to me that the bigots on the right lack are either low-profile, or lack the spine to come right out and say what they think about the significance of Romney's faith, or both.  Left-leaning pundits and activists, however, seem to have a strange sense of license about making bigoted statements that for any other religious faith would be simply unacceptable.  (See Weisberg's Slate column, for example.)  Perhaps by dressing their prejudice up in intellectual garb they think they are doing something high-minded.

So, as our reader suggests, it remains to be seen what damage religious bigots will inflict on Romney.  I continue to believe that the true "gloves off" attack will come if Romney is nominated, in the general election.

John comments:  There are several questions involved in our comments.  The first is what is worthy of media coverage?  I have never said there was no bigotry, I have only contended that in the end there is not enough to make a difference in the outcome of the election.  Bigots are real, and they may even be regionally concentrated, but it is a big country.  The press over covers it.  Ask yourself this - where is the press coverage of the Klan and its anti-Obama comments?

South Carolina is not the hinge state it used to be.  The realignment of primaries means that the usual patterns cannot be relied upon.  Even if bigotry is real and significant in South Carolina, I am far from convinced that Romney's nomination will be that adversly impacted.

Which brings me to my biggest point - this is an election, not a campaign to end anti-Mormon bigotry.  Crossing barriers and ending bias are very different things.  Crossing a barrier is often a necessary step in ending a bias, but it is just one step of a very long journey.  Media looks for symbols, so "the first black XXX elected in Mississippi" means the end of racism in Mississippi - HARDLY.  Ask in black in Mississippi and they will tell you a very different story.  Should Romney prevail, it will be in spite of anti-Mormon bias and bigotry, it will not mark an end to it.

What matters are ROMNEY'S polling numbers, and while he is not doing as well in South Carolina as elsewhere, one must also remember that is part of his strategy.  He is not pouring the effort into there the others are.  He said in an interview on Hugh Hewitt's show that he forsaw Florida's primary move and he was concentrating there.  Thus, in South Carolina they have had less opportunity to have his person overwhelm the concerns than other places.  There are a lot of reasons for the polling to look the way it does, and not all of them mark an end to the campaign, or that anti-Mormon bigotry is bigger than I think it is.

Elsewhere Around The Web

Sam Brownback has apologized for the weekend gaffe by one of his campaign workers:

The Kansas senator “was very disappointed, clearly sort of personally hurt that this had happened in his team, and he said he is going to be very aggressive to make sure it doesn't happen again,'' spokesman Brian Hart said. “There's no place for this in his campaign.''

That story, although about a mistake for which the instigator has apologized, has nevertheless generated other stories like this one. The news media beast is always looking for something to report about.

CNN's Situation Room (as reported by Media Matters) manages to cover The Question — yesterday, no less– without adding one bit of new information to the discussion.

And here's a somewhat conspiratorial view of the anti-Romney forces.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Are Evangelicals Really The Bad Guys In This Story?

IT WAS BOUND TO HAPPEN, and it's no surprise that the L.A. Times was the newspaper that did it:  Conduct a bunch of man in the street interviews with evangelicals in South Carolina; then publish the comments of the interviews reflecting an anti-Mormon bias– one that is offensive to most fair-minded people.  Stated more bluntly: Find some bigots and publish their comments. 

Here's the legacy new media's favorite meme:  Evangelicals are generally close-minded bigots, and large numbers of them will never vote for a Mormon.  Liberal news writers are so in love with that notion that I am sure we will see many more such efforts in print, and then, before long, on television; and thereafter on YouTube.  I suspect that the only effective and honest response will be to keep hammering away as Romney has been:  "Look at my life and my values and my positions on the issue you care about."

Not surprisingly, the New York Times political blog jumps right on the LAT bandwagon:

The Los Angeles Times reports on something that might not be going so great for Mr. Romney. Many evangelicals, a sizeable force in the Republican primary, are turned off by his Mormon faith. [Emphasis added.]

Notice how comments in random man-in-the-street interviews (notably, comments chosen by the LAT reporter) now have morphed into a conclusion about how "many Evangelicals" feel?  The message is, "You've got to watch out for those Evangelicals, they're all knuckle-dragging bigots."  (Note:  It's Lowell the Mormon writing this, not John the Evangelical.)

AND THIS BLOGGER, who runs a web site designed as a "watchdog" on conservative sites, thinks that when conservative Baptists like Richard Land say Romney's faith does not matter, they're being inconsistent with their own faith's beliefs.  Frankly, this is silly, and reflects the "gotcha" attitude of the news media.  The truth is, part of Mormon doctrine holds, in essence, that all other faiths are in error.  Baptist doctrine is that believing Mormons are in error, and are "standing outside a relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ."  Big deal.  That has nothing to do with Mormons voting for Baptists and vice versa.

John adds:  Lowell has done such a good job of analysis here that there is very little for me to add.  Simply put, this story is based on anecdotal "evidence" with any contrary "evidence" after the jump - and that is the electronic version.  This is the oldest game in "journalism" when it comes to making a point in what is supposed to be objective reporting.  I have just three brief comments to add here.

Firstly, this makes the third or fourth, I can't recall precisly at the moment, such piece out of the LAT in recent weeks.  They now appear to join the Boston Globe as on a definite mission to quell the burgeoning Romney campaign.  So many very repititious pieces, in succession, with this rapidity, means they have a goal, even an editorial policy.  This is far more that reportage.

Secondly, the appearance of a piece that rather than try and tell us Evangelicals won't vote for a Mormon, tries simply to make evangelicals look bad marks a bit of a turning point.  The piece admits the increasing momentum of the Romney campaign, citing the Iowa and New Hampshire polling data.  Those numbers in those states mean that many Evangelicals are, in fact, willing to vote for a Mormon.  Thus they must seek to discredit such Evangelicals if they are to succeed in the primary goal, which is to keep a conservative out of office.

Finally, make no mistake, there are knuckle-dragging, bigoted Evangelicals out there, always have been, probably always will be.  Finding them is not a trick — some of them, sadly, seek me out.  I've heard it all, from the gentle to the profane, from the seemingly reasoned to the purely hysterical; I have been accused of bad judgment and told my eternal salvation was at risk.  Such people, not unlike the racial bigots of the nation, while loud and ugly, and the kind of people that make for good print, and good TV, are not that numerous.  Elections are won by majorities, and votes, not the rantings on the loud and often silly.

Most such people are well intentioned, but ill-informed, although not necessarily about Mormonism.  What they are ill-informed about is what makes this nation and their religion really work.  That makes me very sad.  We live in a great nation, the greatest in history, and I share with them a religion that I believe to the the true religion.  Those two facts can co-exist with our nation's chief executive being of a different religion because that is what makes them great and true.  Such people should be educated, not ridiculed for the sake of a journalisticpolitical agenda.

Fact-Checking?  Really?

Sam Brownback's campaign got into a little trouble last weekend.  A Brownback campaign aide claimed to be "fact-checking a series of statements about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  One of the statements she was "checking:"

"Theologically, the only thing Christianity and the LDS church has in common is the name of Jesus Christ, and the LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith" and "The LDS church has never been accepted by the Christian Council of Churches."

Can anyone tell me why any Romney opponent would need to "check" such "a fact?"  Please.  Anyway, Brownback's campaign apologized.  I wonder how many more times we will see this sort of religious sneak attack? 

On The Other Hand, We All Have To Deal With Our Fringe People:

ROMNEY'S BEEN IN ILLINOIS, and gave an interview to Illinois Review.  He's asked about religion, and his answer contains nothing new:

But what of the LDS church. It scares people. The governors' choice of faith even caused a little dustup here at the Illinois Review a few months back. Is his faith a liability?

 

"People certainly have questions about my religion and I will certainly answer them.  My faith has made me a stronger and better person.  It guides how I live my daily life.  Other people believe different things.  Yet, we share common values.  I respect other beliefs and faiths and I believe most Americans feel the same way." I followed up asking if this even a relevant question in today's day and age. The governor answered "I believe when people ask themselves who the best person is to lead America, they want someone who is a proven leader, holds positions they agree with and who they believe can make America a safer and more prosperous nation."

I rarely pay much attention to blog comments on posts like the above.  When I first read the post, almost all the comments were positive, but one stood out:

Many evangelicals have trouble getting by Romney's religion. It's because Mormons use Biblical Christianity "terms" but in the Mormon world the terms mean something entirely different. What difference does that make? It's the evasive nature of Mormonism and the fact that Romney is a product of that culture that's bothersome. He's already demonstrated that trait more then once.

This is a variation of the "Mormons lie" meme that John has decried from time to time, and now is the first time I have seen it tied directly to the "Romney is a flip-flopper" meme.  Hardened as I am to such attacks, I needed to think about that one  before the naked bigotry of it it hit me.  Can you imagine someone writing about how Jews are sneaky and evasive, and so Jewish candidates cannot be trusted, and no one calling the writer on that statement?

John adds: As Lowell points out I have been concerned about this.  There is a huge logical fallacy in equating a different use of a term to evasiveness.  Such is the stuff of the public square and has been for a long time.  Most public debates, if you think about it, are over definitions.  What constitutes a "war" is one that is going on right now.  My Evangelical brethren get very upset about this because they think Mormons "steal" converts this way.  Well, guess what, that is how Democrats and Republicans move swing voters around too, nature of the beast.

I am tempted to get into a long and way-too-religious diatribe about this, but it really is not the subject of this blog.  I'll just say this.  If Evangelicals are losing converts to Mormons, then given the nature and aims of religion in general and Evangelicalism in specific, there has got to be more at play than just vocabulary difficulties.  It is generally the life that demonstrates the vocabulary where the lie or truth of a matter is told. 

Elsewhere Around The Web

HERE'S A BIT about Ann Romney's comments to the National Hispanic Prayer Conference. She speaks of the great personal crisis in her life and hints that she's not thrilled with the religious brickbats thrown her husband's way so far.

This HOUSTON CHRONICLE WRITER Reports on Southern Baptists and what the writer sees as internal divisions about that faith's attention to politics.  The piece is a great read, and is mainly about politicians (including Romney) seeking Baptist support.

A PASTOR WHO GETS IT. 

A WEIRD IRONY OF THE ROMNEY DRAMA, this Salt Lake Tribune writer believes, is that ambitious Mormon politicians aren't supporting Romney because if he wins, he will be unable to appoint any Mormons to high positions.  It's hard to know where to begin with this one, because one needs to make several leaps to get to the same conclusion.  The key leap is that Romney's administration must be devoid of Mormons.  Hmm.  Was JFK's administration devoid of Catholics?  I'll just leave it at that.

ROMNEY'S POSITION ON ABORTION RIGHTS, and questions about the sincerity of his position, are political issues; but The Christian Post gave extensive coverage to his speech last Friday to  National Right to Life's annual convention.

JOHN MARK REYNOLDS STRIKES AGAIN, with this post: "Afraid of JFK: Why Secularists Cannot Debate."  A taste:

There has been much talk of late of the rise of the “seculars” as a power in American politics.

 

Religious people can only feel amused at this new furor as the “establishment” in education and the media have been secular for our entire lifetimes. In politics we have frequently been used to get votes while seculars reaped a disproportionate share of the spoils. To the seculars belonged most of the spoils.

 

To steal an old line: if India is the most religious nation on earth and Sweden the least, America has been a nation of Indians run by Swedes.

Read the whole thing. 

And Finally

WE MISSED THIS EDITORIAL last week in the Toledo Blade, butour student intern Keith Chalmers brought it to our attention. The Blade's conclusion:

Politicians may need religion, but it would be a mistake to assume that the deity is a member of any political party. Religion is still a powerful force in the lives of millions, and when candidates forget that, they do so at their political peril.

Keith also dug up this report of a Sacred Heart University Polling Institute poll:

Over half of all respondents with an opinion, 60.7%, believe a presidential candidate should be a religious person while 39.3% do not.

 

Nearly half of all respondents, 48.4%, suggested their own religious faith always or sometimes guides their views toward politics. An equal percent, 48.4%, said their own faith seldom or never guides their views and 3.2% were unsure.

 

When choosing a presidential candidate, 27.8% consider a candidate's specific religious affiliation relevant to their decisions. Another 66.0% do not and 6.3% are unsure.

Our intern observes:

The results of the surveys in this article seem to confirm [that] although people generally do not hold any candidates' religion against him or her, people do want to know that their candidate is religious:

"[Dr. June-Ann Greeley, assistant professor of Religious Studies and director of Sacred Heart's s Center for Catholic Thought, Ethics and Culture] said one way or the other, the poll shows that for most Americans, religion is important in selecting a candidate. "We think we can understand something meaningful about a person, a politician, if we have a sense of his/her religious beliefs because, clearly, religious belief is still esteemed by a majority of Americans," she said."

And then Keith asks some interesting questions: 

Why is this? Do Americans believe that religion is the only way to find a moral grounding in the United States? These articles show that what Mitt has been touting is catching on: "What religion I am should not matter." Is that begging the question, though? Should religion matter if the values that one holds are the same as the religious community's values? What is it that religion should imply? A certain set of values, right. What if those values exist within a candidate who has no religious affiliation? If you do not vote for that candidate simply because of his lack of religious affiliation are you applying a test of religion to him/ her? 

Is it just me, or when Keith refers to "a candidate who has no religious affiliation," do you also think of . . . Abraham Lincoln?  And who says college students can't be wise?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

ANDREW SULLIVAN thinks it is significant that Romney's national Faith and Values Steering Committee includes only a single Jew, but does include "many Christianists and others deeply hostile to [guess what?] gay dignity and equality."  To say Sullivan's concern is not surprising would be . . . an understatement.  Actually, to call his concern an understatement is itself an understatement.  Self-parody, thy name is Andrew Sullivan!

IN CONTRAST TO SULLIVAN'S HYSTERIA, Michael Gaynor, to whom we linked a couple of days back, again displays his clear-eyed take on The Question and the left: 

The secular extremists recognize Mr. Romney as a formidable foe, so they focus on the differences among the religious in accordance with classic divide-and-conquer theory.

Dead-nuts on, in my view.

AND HERE'S LOU SHELDON, recently named to Romney's Faith and Values Steering Committee:

There's no need to reconcile the Mormon issue. He's running for a secular office. My thinking is that Mitt Romney is a person with the experience and with the Judeo Christian moral values. A non-evangelical who is socially conservative can be president. He may not have the born again experience, but I've been around Mormons long enough to know that when they pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ they are sincere about that– that he is the Lord and the redeemer and the one that they have to be answerable too.

That Sheldon said this to CBN is significant, I think.  Maybe The Question will fade after all. 

John comments and adds:  The question has faded with most people, but it remains, and will remain with the media.  It is astonishing to me that the people who should be the most knowledgeable and most well-read are the ones that hang on to this story, despite its actual non-story status.  Of course there are people out there that will not vote for Romney because . . . but there are still Klan members out there and there are still people who believe Elvis is alive too.  One cannot help but note that the line between reporting on a political force and trying to create one is a very thin line indeed.

IT IS NOT REALLY within this blog's scope, save for the fact that this event will HAVE to be a religious experience for Dean Barnett.

Update from Lowell:  Romney has an op-ed in today's National Review Online.  It's about the politics, values and science bound up in stem cell research.  Although the piece is largely political in nature, we call your attention to it because the stem cell issue is so closely tied to faith concerns.  I'm pretty sure that Romney wrote the op-ed himself (he still writes all his own speeches), so it's a good window into his thinking on matters involving both politics and values– or, as some like to say, his "worldview."

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

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.

Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »