Article VI Blog

And Pew Came Out With A Poll…

Straight from the horses mouth, with spin from ABCNews and comment from WaPo. There are three basic comments/observations from this poll:

The good news, from Pew's summary:

In general, being a Mormon is viewed as far less of a liability for a presidential candidate than not believing in God or being a Muslim. Roughly six-in-ten Americans (61%) say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who does not believe in God, while 45% say they would be reluctant to vote for a Muslim. At the same time, more people express reservations about voting for a Mormon (25%) than about supporting a candidate who is an evangelical Christian (16%), a Jew (11%) or a Catholic (7%). [emphasis added]

That is a significant improvement over previous reports of Mormon negatives.

Unless of course you have a preconceived storyline (perhaps bigotry?) to preserve, from the ABCNews spin:

Of those expressing an opinion on the candidates' beliefs, 46 percent said they consider Romney, a Republican contender, to be very religious, far more than any other candidate. Yet a quarter of all Republicans including 36 percent of white evangelical Protestants said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon.

Why are they reporting the negatives only among "white evangelicals"? Could it be a sideswipe at Evangelicals? Could it be they just refuse to believe a Mormon can win? ABC leads by reporting that Romney's faith could be a problem for him, along with reporting Hillary and Rudy as the perceived "least religious" candidates, when the data clearly shows a lack of religion is far more problematic than holding Mormon faith! They are desparately trying to parse this thing in a way that it simply does not support.

And why would it be that, as Pew reports:

…the candidate seen as far and away the most religious – Mitt Romney

There are one of two factors at play here, likely both to varying degrees. Mormons are generally perceived as "more religious." They set a higher standard for their adherents. However, like all religions, different practitioners take it with different degrees of seriousness. But you also have to think that the press' inability to mention Romney without mentioning his faith, the constant references to the Osmonds, and the repetition until nausea of the word "nice," may have something to do with that too.

In general what we see here is an improvement in Romney's numbers along these lines, but the MSM just cannot seem to get their heads around that.

Adding to the Roll Call of Bigots…

Michael Kinsley, in a Time blog, demands to know about candidate's religions. Kinsley quotes Jacob Weisberg as authority and with admiration, thus adding himself to the roll call of people that have demonstrated themselves to be religious bigots in print. But the breadth of his attack on religion demonstrates once again that in the world of politics Mormons and creedal Christians have far more in common than we have differences.

For me, any candidate who believes in the literal truth of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon or the novels of Jane Austen is probably too credulous to be President.

I am tempted to talk about the literal truth of much of what Mr. Kinsley has written over the years, but shall resist…

So where do religion and politics meet?

Jared Bridges at the FRC blog reports on a discussion he had at American University about religion and politics.

Before a packed room of American University students, we discussed "hot button" issues like same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and the nation's "right-left divide" and evangelicals' involvement in politics.

Now, being the kind of organization it is, FRC can only address issues, not candidates. But I wonder is religious involvement in politics best defined by issues or by religion serving to make better people to serve in office?

Sphere: Related Content

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