John's on vacation, although I suspect he is peeking at the blog from time to time.  We hope he's enjoying himself anyway.  But the blog continues . . . .

For Religious Conservative Voters, Does Commonality of Values Get Any Plainer Than This?

Governor Romney's op-ed from Townhall last Friday is a must-read for anyone seriously following The Question.  The piece, entitled "The Four Walls Of The American Home," begins:

Our nation faces a new generation of challenges that will significantly impact not just our national security, but also the core character of our society and the fabric of our American families.

 

We face these challenges with an understanding that, at the same time, there is a troublesome convergence of enemies aligned against our democratic institutions whose sole interest is defeating them and destroying the freedoms that we are afforded because of them.

At least two aspects of Romney's op-ed are fascinating.  First, it is overflowing with ideas that are sweet music to the ears of religious conservative Christians, Jews, and other faiths.  For example:

Where does [American] strength and goodness come from? Many Democrats would say that America is great today because of our great government. While our government is great, it is hardly the source of our strength. The source of America's strength is the American people – hard working, educated, risk-taking, God-loving, family-oriented, sacrificing and freedom-loving people. The American family has always been and will always be the source of American strength.

 

The fabric of our culture and the strength of the American family depend on our ability as a nation to be both unafraid and optimistic when promoting and protecting these ideals and principles. . . .

 

The most important work being done to strengthen America's future is the work that is being done within the four walls of the American home. Children need the guiding hand of responsible parents. As a child swims through our increasingly polluted and turbulent waters, there is no help more sure than that of a loving mother and father. Every child deserves a mother and a father.

For Mormons this type of talk is completely familiar.  We've been hearing it all our lives.  I suspect it is also familiar to others who are politically conservative and take their faith seriously, whether they are Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, or some combination or variation on any of those.  Will those shared values overcome the nervousness many feel about Romney's faith?  In a way, I guess that's just another way of expressing The Question.

Second, unlike my still-uncommitted co-blogger John, I am an unabashed Romney supporter and may be blinded by my partisanship; but unless I am mistaken, there is no other leading GOP candidate who is talking about these issues in this way.  If I'm wrong, please let me know.

John comments: I certainly have not seen another candidate speak, or write this way, not even the current swoon of the religious right (but only presumed candidate) Fred Thompson.  I will say this, however: after reading this, any person who is a creedal Christian of any stripe that does not vote for Romney better have some very good policy reasons, or else they suffer from a complete misunderstanding of how religion and politics relate in this nation and are likely a religious bigot.

This column pretty well covers the heart of what matters to virtually every creedal Christian I have ever met.  I could not fit a playing card between what I think on these matters and what Gov. Romney has written, and I think I am pretty typical.  That still does not mean I am committed; smart politics says wait to commit regardless.

I should also add that this is smart politics on Romney's part.  With the column he has backed the leadership of the Religious Right into a corner.  This is the kind of stuff they usually talk about, and they sound remarkably like this.  Thus Romney has taken their pet issues out of their hands.  They are forced to either declare a religious problem to move against him, something they can ill-afford to do or be painted as the bigots the MSM already thinks they are, or they must now tread into territory with which they are very unfamiliar and risk looking the fool.

This should quiet the rumblings of the Religious Right until Thompson is in and has declared himself similarly, or not.  This should also, thankfully, alleviate the pressure, at least internally, that Romney has been feeling to give "a speech."  This is as close to such a speech as he should ever get.

Local News Coverage:  Will Romney's Candidacy Make Life Harder for Other Mormons?

We've seen more and more stories like this one popping up in local newspapers.  The headline, "Eastern Connecticut Mormons fear bigotry," is also typical.  I haven't heard much of this, but it does seem that some Mormons worry about attacks on their faith and hurtful news coverage that might result from Romney's candidacy.

Interestingly, Ray Hackett, the same journalist who wrote the story above has an op-ed in the same edition of the newspaper about The Question.  Beyond being thought-provoking, his comments are noteworthy because he bothered to publish them in a separate space clearly designated as opinion, rather than simply sprinkling his opinion throughout his news article.  How old-school!  And how refreshing.

And here's an Iowa story on a related subject:  Will Mormons there vote for Romney just because he's a co-religionist?  It appears that the answer is no.

This Salt Lake Tribune op-ed is interesting.  The author is self-described "gay Mormon" who thinks "mormonphobia" is the same thing as homophobia.  His thesis:  "Many protesters who shout, 'God hates fags' most certainly believe that 'God hates Mormons' as well."  There are a few halfway-reasonable points here as well as "a whole lot of nonsense," to use John's phrase.

John adds: Just sorting the wheat from the chaff here a little . . . . Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry, that is why there are good points in this piece.  There is such a thing as anti-Mormon bigotry.  The problem, of course, is when the gay community claims claims such status for an immoral activity.  Having said that; however, it would be bigoted to withhold a vote from a gay person simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.  If there were a gay candidate who lined up as closely on the issues with me as Romney does above, I'd probably vote for him/her.  I will; however, say that the likelihood of such an issues alignment is remote.

But what is really interesting is this guy is trying to use The Question as a wedge to open up acceptance for himself it he Mormon community.  By casting common cause through the various "phobias," he is trying to make friends where otherwise enemies might exist.  It is, in a sense, a call to arms against Evangelicals.  I think Mormons in general are a bit classier.

Elsewhere Around The Web

This one is too funny not to mention.  When I first saw it I thought I was reading an Onion parody.  But these people are serious!

A pastor who seems to be from the fundamentalist branch of evangelicalism has some doubts about  that incident in which several members of a self-described Christian group called Operation Save America disrupted the prayer of a Hindu chaplain in the U.S. Senate.  Whether or you agree with this man's politics, his piece is very much worth reading.

John adds:  He has to be pullquoted, it is just too good:

But does America need protecting from Hindu's or Mormons or JW's or Muslims etc? What I believe about false religions is all over this blog, so it goes without saying that I disagree with this man. However, doesn't our constitution give him as much right to pray to his false godsssssssssssss' as I have to pray to the real one? Honestly I am surprised this is the first time a Hindu has opened the Senate in prayer. These political Christian organizations (which may be an oxymoron, I am still working on that) shout from the rooftops that we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Ultimately, whatever legislation is going to protect us from Hindus is also going to protect them from Christianity. As much as I disagree with Rajan Zed he has a right to pray in spite of the fact that doing so violates the 1st commandment.

 

[…]

 

Some might say they were protecting Christianity, but does Christianity really need protecting like that? According to the press release they were "taking a stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Honestly, I don't think it furthered the cause of Christ in anyway. It kind of reminds me of the story Elijah and the prophets of Baal. God proved who had power and who didn't. It's His battle. I am glad to live in a country where I am free to worship the One True God. If that means I have to put up with a Hindu prayer occasionally so be it. If it comes down to a show down between Jehovah and Humbaba with the 17 arms (and it will) I know who will win.

That last paragraph ought be engraved in stone and it is a challenge to every one of my brethren that are concerned about The Question, especially "it will aid Mormon missionary efforts" Mohler.  Do you really lack that much faith?  Do we, as creedal Christians want someone whose faith is that weak leading us?

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Huckabee: “Who me? What’d I do?”
• Mitt Romney as “Mormon of the Year?” Why?
• I Thought The Press Was Supposed To Investigate?!
• That Beck/Dobson Thing Won’t Go Away…
• New Year’s Eve Quick Links
• Following The Stories We Have Been Following
• History Being Rewritten Before Our Eyes
• Bigotry Abounds!
• ARRGH!
• Embarrassed By My Brethren…