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

2 Comments »

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.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

HEY!  What do you know?  Romney's father did have a little something to say about The Question. (HT: Race 4 2008)

Jacques Berlinerblau of Georgetown University gives most Evangelcals good marks for their attitudes towards Romney.  He is right, most Evangelicals have been right on, and those that have objections have not really risen to bigotry, just a misplacement of theology in the spectrum of political importance.  Our thesis remains intact, it takes a liberal to make a genuine religious bigot.

Although this guy seems to have missed all those well-behaving evangelical leaders.  Once again, we find someone that tells us about the Evangelicals that have a problem with Romney, but fails to mention the far more numerous ones that do not.  And wasting that much space on Keller?  Give me a break - the guy may be the most out there, but his consituency is pretty insignificant.  But then that would ruin the narrative, wouldn't it?

Meanwhile…

At Beliefnet, those wonderful people that have been hosting the Mohler/Card debate on whether Mormons are Christians, Stephen Prothero (formerly cited on this blog for his book Religious Literacy) opines about the need for basic general religious knowledge amongst the candidates.

I do not care whether Romney is a Mormon or a Protestant or a Hindu. I do care, however, whether he knows enough about the world's religions to serve as our head of state and safeguard our national security.

It would be helpful if the voters knew the LDS of today and not 150 years ago too.

Finally…

Jim Geraghty made an absolutely awful pun at our expense.  Clearly a classy guy with a really bad sense of humor.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Yesterday I said:

Much as it pains me, I must rise to the defense of Hillary Clinton here.  A story of this type would just be better left unwritten.

I was referring to the NYTimes profile of HRC's religiousity.  As if on cue, mere moments after I hit the post button, Cal Thomas made my point for me.  Thomas rather indelicately attacks HRC's particular brand of Christian faith:

About the accuracy of Scripture, Sen. Clinton serves up theological mush: "The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God's desire for a personal relationship (good, so far), but we can't possibly understand every way God is communicating with us. I've always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understandings of the time into the Bible might be actually missing the larger point."

 

That is precisely the point of liberal Christianity, to which Sen. Clinton subscribes.

Thomas justifies his trip to theonerdville this way:

The quality and depth of one's relationship with God should be personal and beyond the judgment of others, unless one is running for president and chooses to talk about it as part of a campaign plan to win the election.

Which should be an object lesson for Governor Romney.  Please recall that yesterday we also linked to a USNEWS piece in which Romney claims to be considering addressing The Question in some fashion.  In so doing he would be granting permission for this kind of discussion about what is the "true" gospel, and if Thomas' piece is hard-hitting, imagine what such a piece about Mormon doctrine would be like?  Not pretty, not pretty at all.

In the original NYTimes piece, Clinton is attempting to explain her religiousity because it is, as the piece opens with, under attack from some circles.  As I said yesterday, Clinton's faith should not be under attack, but it is important to note that all she really accomplished with her defense is to take the discussion in a direction that it just has no business going.  Should the discussion contiunue on these lines, Geraghty's "distraction" that we also discussed, and largely dismissed, yesterday would become a genuine and problematic reality.

Thomas, who should know better, only makes the downward spiral accelerate.

You know, this makes me wonder if HRC is not trying to force Romney into a corner - "I showed you mine, you show me yours" - knowing that to the average creedal Christian she'll come out looking a lot better, even with criticisms like Thomas'.

Speaking of yesterday…

I have attempted to contact the Guiliani campaign reagrding the bigoted, not to mention tasteless, video uncovered by K-Lo at The Corner.  To date, no response.  I find that troubling.

And, A Closing Wisecrack…

It's official, I don't belong to a "real" church.  I guess Lowell and I really are in the same boat now - which should be very instructive.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Here's Jim Geraghty's addition to his ongoing exchange with Hugh Hewitt:

Look. If Mitt Romney gets the Republican nomination, a good portion of the political discussion in the 2008 campaign is going to center around, “Are Mormons normal?” It’s unfair, it stinks, and in a better world, it wouldn’t happen. But the opposition is going to push every argument they can to paint this faith as too strange for a President, and a significant chunk of the conservative message effort is going to have to be dedicated to refuting that notion. And the more time spent debating Mormon theology is less time spent on arguments about why taxes should be low, why our policies on terrorism should be aggressive, why the border should be secure, why red tape hurts small businesses, why we should get pork out of the budget, etc.

 

We’ve all heard the comment that in politics, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing”; I fear that in Clinton vs. Romney contest, the right would be forced to do a lot of explaining.

This is a truly fascinating analysis:  We should worry about nominating Romney because people will attack him for his faith, and that will be a distraction.

Doesn't that rub you the wrong way, just a little bit?

Let's try that analysis out on some other candidates: 

• We should not nominate Lieberman because he'll spend too much time calming the fears of voters over his Jewishness.  This will be worse for him than for some other Jewish candidates, because Liberman's observant and actually takes his faith seriously.
• We should not nominate Obama because he'll spend too much time calming the fears of voters over his race (not to mention his childhood involvement with Muslim education).

Can you imagine such punditry avoiding widespread denunciation?

John adds: What annoys me about Geraghty's notions here is how little faith he has in the American people.  That Romney's faith is the discussion order of the day is largely a product of media and pundits like Geraghty and not the American people.  Why, just last week I was on an airplane with a man that lived in Boston during Romney's term as governor and never knew Romney was Mormon until I told him.   While that is certainly not typical of the chattering classes, I think it quite representative of the mainstream voter.

If Romney's faith is the predominant point of discussion in the general election it will be so because the media puts it there, or more likely because the Democratic opponent puts it to the media who then will put it there.  That scenario is one quite likely to make the average American just a bit disgusted with the Democrats.  The American voting public has grown quite adept as seeing through the media smokescreen into what really matters.  The media may spin the Mormon wheel until it is blue in the face, thus once again consigning themselves to the eventual scrap heap.  While voters turn to the internet and look into what really matters and cast their votes accordingly.

And then John continues:

USNews does a Q&A with Romney and the inevitable finally happens:

How will you deal with criticisms of your Mormon faith?

I have said that time will give us the answer on whether we do a big speech; and then I read Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House? and his conclusion was, don't give a speech, you know it can never be as good as Jack Kennedy's [addressing critics of his Roman Catholicism]. And that's true, and it won't answer the critics. But more recently I am more inclined to [because] there have been comments about my faith that have been inaccurate, and it has become more of a visible issue.

Finally, Romney admits the work that Hewitt has done on this issue, but he must resist the impulse to give a Kennedy speech.  First of all, it is not his role to defend his church against inaccuracies.  Bush's Evangelicalism has been often misrepresented as well; such is just a fact of political life for a religious person of any stripe.  The LDS church has proven quite capable of defending itself against such things.  Not to mention a certain blog that works that topic pretty hard as well.

As to the increased visiblility of the issue, a speech would serve only to increase that visibility, not decrease it.  As Romney says, such a speech would not answer the critics, but it would give them permission to get much louder, much harsher, and much nastier than they have been to date.

The fact of the matter, the nation would have been better served if Kennedy had kept his mouth shut.  His speech was a brilliant bit of campaigning, and went a long way to win him the presidency, but it did not help one iota in placing religion into the proper political perspective - it relegated it to the sidelines.  Romney should chose the high road here and lead by example.

This is where such things will lead us.  Much as it pains me, I must rise to the defense of Hillary Clinton here.  A story of this type would just be better left unwritten.

Mrs. Clinton’s references to faith, though, have come under attack, both from conservatives who doubt her sincerity (one writer recently lumped her with the type of Christians who “believe in everything but God”) and liberals who object to any injection of religion into politics. And her motivations have been cast as political calculation by detractors, who suggest she is only trying to moderate her liberal image.

Such attacks from either side are just wrong.  I am clueless about the sincerity or lack thereof of Hillary Clinton's faith; I am certain it is of a very different shape than mine, but if it provides her with solace and comfort, and Lord knows the woman needs both in spades, then who am I to take that from her?  I might offer her some better alternatives, but to trash her for it is just being ugly.

"is Hillary Clinton a real, genuine Christian?" is little different than asking, "If Mormons are Christians."  Such things are between individuals, their church and their God - they are certainly not questions for general public discourse or the voting booth.

Any speech that Romney would give would only fuel this kind of talk.  If he tried to straighten out misconceptions he would open the door to endless, and likely theological, debate.  I cannot tell you how many creedal Christians tell me what Mormons believe and do, they care not when I tell then "That is not what my Mormon friends tell me."  Lecturing the press and public on what is and is not legitimate political discussion will get him accused of trying to hide something, which will just make them dig harder.  Sequestering his faith, ala JFK, will only feed the "flip-flop" beast which will again come back to "Mormons lie" and it will spiral from there.

Needless to say, I have a great deal of sympathy for Romney in this instance, but all he can do is play defense.  I do think the time may have arrived for him to counterpunch.  His answer to this question is both a probe and a very mild counterpunch.  The last debate showed that the counterpunch works, but going on the offensive is a no-win.

Lowell adds briefly: That Romney himself allows that a speech might be necessary tells us he is thinking about it.  I hope he doesn't make a speech about The Question.  I am beginning to think that some kind of event is needed– maybe a Meet The Press appearance where he can respond to The Question?  But not a speech.  It would be red meat for the MSM, and they would dine on it for the rest of the campaign.  It's just the narrative they want Romney to create for them.

Finally…

If this is for real, Rudy Guiliani has officially disqualified himself from serious consideration in my book.  K-Lo put up a pro-Guiliani video that provides a link to a legitimate Rudy site and the video features the tag line "Rudy - Unattractive, not a Mormon."  Of course, it is quite possible this was not actually produced by the Guiliani campaign (it lacks the requisite "I'm Rudy Guiliani and I approved this ad") and it is, I think, intended to be funny.  It misses the funny mark by a mile and if it is not actually from the campaign they better very publicly demand a withdrawal of the link, and an apology ASAP.

Imagine some pro-Hillary video going up with a tag line "Hillary, She's a shrew, but at least she's not black."  Not so cute now, is it?

K-Lo calls the video "annoying."  She's being kind, it's despicable, and Guiliani better distance himself from it as far and as fast as he can.

Lowell:  I call it bigoted, and something no one would be able to get away with if the word "Mormon" were replaced with "Jew," Catholic," "Muslim," "African-American," "Latino," and so forth.  Rudy has been quite honorable in his approach to such matters so far.  We'll see what happens this time.  What needs to happen is for religion-bashing to become just as unacceptable as those slurs against ethnic groups.  I don't think that will happen in this campaign, but we could take some big steps in that direction.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

We commented rather extensively on Friday on Jim Geraghty's NRO piece on Romney's "quirkiness."  We noted on Friday that Hugh Hewitt has some good things to say about the piece as well, and on Saturday morning Hugh had a lot more to say.

I don't think Jim Geraghty has an ounce of such bigotry in him — see my blurb for his book and my many endorsements of his many incredible contributions to political commentary over the years– but I do think he made it more respectable to throw around anti-Mormon canards by worrying that people were going to throw around anti-Mormon canards.

 

I believe that attacks on Romney's faith that are bigoted have to be vigorously denounced, not worried over.  I expect conservatives, especially those with an understanding of the left's long assault on the participation of people of faith in the politics, to understand that snide assaults on Mormon practice are going to be followed by snide asssaults on Catholic and evangelical beliefs and practices because religious bigots generally hate all religions except their own.  Even if one can't be persuaded that they have skin in the game, religious bigotry is itself an evil thing that deserves denunciation whenever it appears, just as all sorts of bigotry ought to be denounced.

I think that Geraghty's permission-giving goes perhaps a step further.  The juxtaposition of Geraghty's comments about Romney's "quirkiness" with his concern about The Question implicitly establishes a "code" behind which anti-Mormon bigotry can hide.  I don't think it will be more than a week before I will begin to see blog posts, if not news pieces, utilizing the code.  John Mark Reynolds agrees:

Of course, Geraghty has the right to say as he pleases, but that does not make it prudent or even proper. He would never pass on anti-Semite or racist code words without denouncing them as such. In the same way, it is improper to pass on anti-Mormon code words (such as weird) without pointing out that those that use them are acting improperly.

Does anybody besides me remember Jimmy the Greek?  His comments concerning African-American athletes were largely factual, not bigoted, but they were comments of a type that could provide cover to racial bigotry.  Hence they were considered deplorable and the Greek lost his job.  To this day you can hear people use the term "better athletes" in a derogatory and racist fashion concerning Blacks.

Implicit in Geraghty's comments is an acceptance, as was the case with the Greek's comments, that certain levels of bigotry simply are, they cannot be changed, they must be accepted.  I, like Hugh, do not think bigotry can be accepted.  Because, as Hugh points out so plainly, when we accept it in any fashion, we give it room to grow.

Geraghty's comments, although certainly unwittingly so, made him an accomplice to bigotry, that deserves criticism.

Lowell comments, ever so briefly:  I have a trial this week so I may be scarce here on this blog, but I must say that the truly compelling teaching of the Geraghty-Hewitt exchange, and Professor Reynolds' analysis of it, is that denunciation of bigotry is important.  We cannot simply report it as the inevitable consequence of a Romney candidacy.

As if to illustrate the point for us, Power Line points to a Politico discussion.  The discussion begins as precisely the the kind of thing we are talking about - facts or psuedo-facts presented about a people, in this case Jews, that provide cover for pure bigotry.  The discussion rapidly loses even its civilized veneer and drops into anti-semitic vulgarity.  After reading through it, it would be very easy to see the same thing happen in the wake of Geraghty's piece.

Speaking of the Law of Unintended Consequences…

David over at EFM points out the serious double standard in some of Al Moher's continuing discussion on whether Mormons are Christians and ends his post with this very insightful comment:

Is it the case that "thinking" evangelicals should embrace candidates with multiple marriages, overlook adultery, and not worry about theological niceties so long as someone is at least in the pew next to us and mouthing the Nicene Creed (or used to sit in the pew next to us and used say the creed)? But at the same time it's just too much to vote for a Mormon who loves Jesus, loves his wife, has raised five great sons who love Jesus and love their wives, and shares every relevant moral and political value with us — because, well, it's just symbolically a bad message?

 

We should never forget that debates like Beliefnet's "Blogalogue" take place in the real world and that tearing down the Mormon candidate invariably helps someone else. And that someone else is not Mike Huckabee. In 2007 and 2008, that someone else will be a person who does not share our moral and political values.

We are engaged in a national political debate, not an ecclesiastical one.  The election from which this theological discussion springboards also means the theological discussion is not happening in the halls of academia, but in the most public of eyes.  In the eyes of a public that simply lacks the background to understand the niceties and fine points to which Mohler clings so tightly.

In the same piece we linked on Geraghty, John Mark Reynolds contributes to this discussion too:

(As theology, I think Mormonism wrong. I do not think Mormonism is Christian in the strong sense of the term, but I think my theological differences, which are very, very great with Mormonism are not relevant to my vote for President in the case of Mitt Romney.)

Note again the necessity of a modifier to the term "Christian" to even begin to have this discussion.  Audience is everything in a discussion like this.  We have here discarded the use of the term "cult" when it relates to Mormonism because the term has so many definitions - some which fit, and some which do not.  A similar argument applies to this discussion.  "Christian" is a word with many, many meanings; from "follower of Christ" to "subscriber to the Westminster Shorter Catechism."  I would be willing to bet that if you surveyed a Sunday church service full of people as to the definition of "Christian" you would get as many definitions as there were people surveyed.

Under such circumstances, to fight over whether Mormons are or are not "Christians" is, at best, to attempt to relegate them to the category of "other" - yet another in the series of code words for societal and political bigotry.

Elsewhere…

My home town newspaper conducts an interview with the local stake president (for the uninitiated, that is a high lay office in the LDS Church).  It is interesting for a couple of reasons.  First, it is quite respectful and an excellent example of how this sort of thing should be done, if it must be done at all.  Secondly, I met the first Mormon I ever knew in high school in Indianapolis, something of a statistical fluke given their scarcity in the region at the time.  Blaine Peterson deserves mention in this blog at least once simply because he was the first person ever to demonstrate to me that Mormons were people too - and this gives me the opportunity. 

The NYTimes interviews 40 entire Evangelicals in Iowa and figures it knows what we are all thinking.  But this article rises to the level of shameful, when it comes to this bit of "bigotry code coverage:"

His religion actually bolsters his credibility in her mind, Ms. Nichols said, as someone with strong family values. His wholesome family image — he and his wife are high school sweethearts, with 5 children and 10 grandchildren — also helps reinforce that impression.

 

“I felt like morally and ethically, because of his Mormon values, that he would be trustworthy,” she said.

 

But she began to question her allegiance Saturday, after listening to Mr. Romney speak at a Republican candidate forum in Des Moines sponsored by the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief. There, Mr. Romney said he opposed federal financing for embryonic stem cell research but would not outlaw it. The response confused Mrs. Nichols.

Note how in those three paragraphs they build a link between the "flip-flop" thing, a wrong but legitimately political charge, and Romney's faith.  I have said all along the "Mormons lie" meme would be the most difficult to overcome because it can hide in precisely this kind of "code."  Romney's legitimate and sincere conversions on certain issues have created a place for bigotry to hide.  Can't do much about that in people's hearts and minds, but for the NYTimes to play it up is despicable, even for the biased MSM.

Finally…

… according to Philip Klein at Politico, we and those who think like us are the villains on The Question: (HT: Kansas City Star's "Buzz" column)

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's viability as a presidential candidate, conventional wisdom holds, will hinge on whether he can prevent his religion from becoming an issue. But in reality, if Romney's Mormonism does become a major part of the presidential race, it would be a huge coup for his campaign. Such a controversy would deflect attention from all of the other drawbacks to his candidacy.

 

[…]

 

There are many drawbacks to Romney's candidacy. But if the media end up framing the election, as Romney-lover Hugh Hewitt has, by asking, "A Mormon in the White House?" it will only help the candidate by distilling criticism to one issue that he can easily swat away by calling for religious tolerance. In other words, his so-called "Mormon problem" is a giant red herring.

Between those opening and closing paragraphs, Mr. Klein makes his case against a Romney candidacy on political grounds.  I do not agree with all of his analysis, but it is legitimate political discussion.  His set up and conclusion; however, are so heinous as to belie serious consideration of what lies between.

Firstly, to conflate Hugh Hewitt and the general media is like confusing water and gasoline.  Clearly Mr. Klein has not been paying much attention.  The Question started long before this blog, or Hugh's book were dreamed of.  Both came in response to lengthy media consideration.  Please check our "Resources" page for verification of that fact.  Eastland, Novak, and most notably Sullivan made issue of Romney's faith.  Sullivan is notable because far from reporting, hers was an attack on that very basis.

Secondly, while I cannot speak for Hugh on the matter, I can say that Mr. Klein obviously thinks Lowell and I fools — That we have somehow been duped into fighting a bias and even bigotry that was trumped up as a diversionary tactic.  Has Klein not read the litany of bigotry that has come from people with whom Hewitt could not collude if he wanted to - Weisberg, Linker, Woodward, et. al.?  The assertion that The Question is a diversionary tactic is conspiracy theory stuff on a level with the Bilderbergers.

Finally, and what makes Mr, Klein's efforts indeed heinous, is that, like the liberals that I assume an American Spectator writer like Klein would loathe, it reduces religion to ploy, to instrument of politics.  Such tactics are destructive to both religion and to politics.  There is a presumption of insincerity on the part of people of genuine faith that is wrongheaded and insulting.  My faith is very real and very important to me - as I know is Lowell's, and Hugh's.  To accuse any of us of using something that important in our lives as a mere tactic is to call us liars concerning our professions of faith.  Such should simply be beneath anyone of public voice, certainly in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

Speaking for myself, I started with this blog solely and only to help preserve the voice of religion in our political system in the proper and balanced context.  I have come, in the course of that activity, to be very sympathetic to the Romney candidacy, but like Hewitt, I am uncommitted - there is a lot of time between now and then.  What Mr. Klein accuses Hewitt of, and therefore indirectly this blog, is something I simply cannot stand for.  His analysis of the Romney candidacy may stand as he wishes, but I call on Mr. Klein to withdraw his baseless and heinous accusations concerning the motivations of people examining The Question.  Such accusations have no place in American public discourse.

Late thoughts from Lowell:  Like too many pundits — both conservative and liberal — Klein demonstrates great ignorance of his subject.  Anyone — anyone– who has been following the story of Romney's candidacy and his religion knows that the Governor would be a fool to attempt a "Mormon red herring" strategy.  The idea is so ridiculous as to be laughable.

Romney's Mormon problem, as Hewitt calls it, is a serious one for him. What we've tried to do on our humble blog is identify and, where appropriate, denounce the religion-based smears, inaccuracies, and far-too-common outright bigotry that appear in the news media about Romney.   As John notes, we are not defending Mormonism– there are other forums for that debate– but we are defending the right of a candidate to be a religious person, and the proper role of religion in the public square.  It's disheartening to see a conservative writer like Klein attempt to dismiss all that thought and discussion, and all the underlying serious issues, as mere politics.  He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »