Article VI Blog

TV Enters the Fray…

CBS runs a piece that seems intended to emphasize Mormon distinctives, just when things could be settling down a bit. They even say Romney's "advisers" are calling for a JFK speech. The piece adds nothing to the discussion that is not already there, and I hate to break it to CBS, but the punditry is calling for a JFK speech a whole lot more than "advisors." Like I keep saying, the media wants what they think will be red meat on a story that has lost its energy.

As if in response . . .

Dinesh D'Souza pens a piece that is smart.

No. What Kennedy did was perhaps politically necessary to diffuse anti-Catholic prejudice. Yet this is not the correct meaning of separation of church and state, which as the founders envisioned it would merely forbid the establishment of a national church or official theological orthodoxy.

Sweet reason! But remember, we said it first here. Here is the really interesting point:

Leaving aside our peculiar Camelot crew, most people cannot separate their religious beliefs from who they are. Romney has a wonderful opportunity to make an important distinction. The distinction is between Mormon theology and Mormon morality. Theology is the province of revelation, and it is in the nature of revelation to be outside the province of rational debate. I cannot, for example, give you reasons why I believe in the Trinity. Morality, however, may derive from religion but it is entirely defensible in terms of reason. I don't need to appeal to the Book of Daniel or Jonah in the belly of the whale in order to convince you why government policy should protect human life or support the family as the institution for raising the next generation. Moral argument is at the core of what democratic debate and democratically-approved legislation is all about, as the debates over slavery and the civil rights movement clearly show.

Mormon theology is, at least for us non-Mormons, very strange. But Mormon morality is not strange at all. In fact, it is generally the same morality espoused by traditional Christianity and also by traditional Judaism, traditional Islam, and traditional Hinduism. Mormons as a group are wonderful people: creatively entrepreneurial, thoroughly devoted to their families, law-abiding and decent. They are, in fact, exemplary Republicans and conservatives. Romney should argue that his Mormon theology is a private belief but Mormon ethics and values are precisely those traditional American principles that built this country and now need to be revived.

I think that is what Romney is arguing, though perhaps not as directly as Dinesh does here. The problem is, most people don't think about their morality either. There is also a problem when a candidate gets pedantic, voters don't like it. Heck of a point being made here, but it is all in the execution.

Lowell: I just wish a lot of people read D'Souza. That would not be necessary, however, if enough voices start making this point.

And from Hollywood . . .

Michael Medved berates the forthcoming (maybe, it's been postponed numerous times) release of September Dawn. His arguments are great, particularly since he does so without accusing the producers of trying to capitalize on Romney's candidacy.

Lowell: Medved's piece is worth reading if only for his discussion of the left's general disapproval of, and outright enmity toward, faith and religion.

LATE ADDITION - Atheists On Parade

Richard Cohen, writing at Real Clear Politics, argues that candidates of faith must set their religion aside when making policy decisions. Cohen selectively quotes JFK, and Rudy Guiliani, to weave an arguement that only makes sense if you are an avowed secularist. He seeks not to place religion in the proper political context, but to eradicate it from public discourse. He neglects the fundamental basis of our nation which is highly religious, but equally highly non-sectarian.

Secularists like Cohen confuse sectarianism (inter-denominational and inter-faith debates and competition) and the more generic religious impulses of the vast majority of the nation.

This strikes at the heart of one of the most important thesis of this blog - when we break down into sectarianism ("I won't vote for Romney because he is Mormon, not a good Baptist like me!") we give ammunition to the secularists that cannot tell the difference between that sectarianism and plain public religion.

It is incumbent on any person of faith, even when proclaiming oposition to the Romney candidacy to make plain in that opposition that it is not on a sectarian basis, or the kinds of things that Cohen argues will win the day.

Lowell: A couple of quick comments: First, it is notable that Cohen refers to Jan Mickelson, the interviewer in the now-famous off-air YouTube video of Gov. Romney, as someone "who established himself (on the spot) as something of an expert on the Mormon faith." This is laughable. (Writers like Cohen are often laughable when commenting on religious matters.) Mickelson simply got hold of what is called the LDS Church's "Handbook of Instructions" and quoted it out of context. He made his ignorance clear, and now so does Cohen– except Cohen is worse, because he shows that he is impressed by superficial shows of expertise. A journalist should know better.

Besides, Giuliani won't talk about religious matters because he simply cannot get away with doing that. His life shows no integrity with regard to any religious conviction, which, perversely, is what attracts so many from the left and the MSM to him. They feel more comfortable with someone who does not strive for a high personal standard of behavior. (Yes, that is a judgmental statement on my part, but I believe it's true.) Giuliani, therefore, is no model for how a candidate should approach matters of faith.

Sphere: Related Content

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