Article VI Blog

Religion in politics is hot, hot, hot…

Monday we saw "Clinton's "Confession" which lead to yesterday's look at polling on religious attitudes amongst voters from the NYTimes to be capped off with Time Magazine's big story on the Dems and faith, and another on where Dems lost religion.

It is really difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in all of this.  As far as the analysis goes, I wonder if there is less of a shift in actual voting patterns and more of an "opening of new markets" as it were.  There is a definite mobilization of liberal Christians as a group, arising because of the increased prominence of conservative Christians politically.  I see this a lot being a conservative in a fairly liberal church.  Not all that many Evangelicals that voted conservative last time are moving away as those that voted liberal last time are self-identifying as Evangelicals this time.

The problem I have is that analyzing the faith in political terms like this will eventually tear Christians apart.  As we witnessed in the HRC/Cal Thomas discussion earlier this week, if you think the inter-religious bickering between creedals and Mormons is something, wait'll you see what comes down the pike in this one – at least Mormons agree that they are different.

It is clear that the Democrats, in concert with their undeclared allies in the MSM, are on an all- out assault for the religious vote.  Religious voters need to be very careful here.  The Law of Unintended Consequences tends to take hold in situations like this and we may not be left with much that resembles the church anymore.

Which brings me to a very interesting occurrence…

Apparently Richard Land has effectively endorsed Fred Thompson.  I find this extraordinary, given that Thompson isn't really a candidate just yet.  This originally appeared on David Brody's blog (copy I archived because it appears to have disappeared from the Brody File front page)  In the blog version Brody said this:

The Brody File is always trying to give it to you straight so let me do so here. Dr. Land is not the only Evangelical leader to feel this way. Others that I have talked to haven't gone on record but they like what they see from Thompson. This has got to be a major concern for Mitt Romney…not to mention frustrating. Here is Romney working hard on the campaign trail for months and securing key conservatives along the way. He's put out policy initiatives, talked about the culture war, etc. Thompson skips along singing a happy tune because he's not officially in yet. Romney needs some of those Evangelical heavyweights. Having them in his hip pocket is crucial. It would give him cover on the Mormon issue. It's a long race but I'm hearing that you can expect some of these national leaders to come out by the fall with who they like. Time is of the essence.

Here is my concern – what would cause an evangelical leader like Land to come out this strongly for a candidate that is not even in the race yet?  Worse, what about all the rumors?  Look for these people to use the "flip-flop" thing for cover, but I have to wonder if religious discrimination is not at play?  While Land has never committed to Romney he is on record saying that Romney's faith should not matter, but there is no substance here and to say something like this about a presumptive candidate when there is someone eminently qualified in for sure is very telling indeed.

Lowell adds:  It's hard to know what to say about this.  Here's what Land himself said:

"This is Fred Thompson's race to lose" [Land] said. "I have never seen anything like this grassroots swell for Thompson. I'm not speaking for Southern Baptists, but I do believe I have my hand on the pulse of Southern Baptists and I think I know where the consensus is."

 

He further said that in his assessment, Thompson may be the right man, in the right place, at the right time.

 

Bottom line: Land believes that Thompson looks to be the strongest social conservative who could beat Hillary Clinton in a general election.

(Emphasis added.) I think Land's political opinion is no more prescient than anyone else's; it remains to be seen how well Thompson does when he stops playing "above the fray" and actually declares his candidacy.  But I suspect Land's right about where the Southern Baptist "consensus" is.  I think it is more a plurality than a true consensus, but his view makes sense to me.  Thompson is a folksy southerner who says all the right things and has a wonderful persona when reading from a script. 

And– I might as well say it– Thompson's not a Mormon.  Right or wrong, there's deep antipathy on the part of Southern Baptists against Mormons.  (It does not work both ways; we never talk about Southern Baptists, except perhaps in passing, in my church.  You will not find pamphlets warning Mormons against the evils of the Southern Baptist faith, for example.)  I never appreciated the depth of that antipathy until I began writing on this blog.  It makes perfect sense to me that a conservative, non-Mormon alternative to Romney would attract those people.

As John and I have written many times: If I'm right, and that conservative Southern Baptist voting bloc continues to spurn Romney for his faith, the consequences could be unfortunate for everyone.  Not the least of those is the beginning of an era in which a candidate's faith is fair game in politics.  Another is the long-term marginalization of religious creedal Christian conservatives.

Which brings me to this piece from the Christian press.  The piece examines (finally) the Mormon side of the Mohler/Card debate on whether Mormons are "Christians" and the headline says a mouthful:

Mormon Defender Skirts Christian Question; Instead Calls for Unity

Rather than seeing Card's point (the question is not important to a political discussion, or general social action) they choose to paint Card as evasive.

I still think the represents a lesser portion of the evangelical vote than the MSM would like to have us believe, but this stuff is troubling.

But then…

…Some of my brethren have never been that smart.  Later, released on bail, the three Christians that protested a Senate prayer by a Hindu just demonstrated how to be rude.  This is not even about faith, it's just about common decency.  Come on, people! You are giving us all a bad name.

Does our faith need defending?  Absolutely, but this is not the way to do it.

Elsewhere…

Yada, yada, yada.

Al Mohler discusses the recent Vatican pronouncments concerning Protestantism.  He goes out of his way to emphasize the distinctives, but also to make very nicey-nice.  Why can't he do that with Mormons?

Lowell:  Sigh . . . to put it very bluntly and not politely at all, probably because there are 60,000 young Mormon men and women all over the world inviting people to consider becoming Mormons, and enjoying a fair amount of success, which drives many pastors like Mohler crazy. 

And finally…

A very interesting essay on the deep philosophical underpinnings of religion and politics.

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• The Return of Wright
• More Religious Values That Matter – Right and Wrong Turns
• Religious Values That Matter
• The Seeds of Social War
• Romney Triumphant