Article VI Blog

"Religion, Politics, the Presidency: Commentary by a Mormon, an Evangelical, and an Orthodox Christian"

United States Constitution — Article VI:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Today’s Reading List – September 10, 2007

Posted by: John Schroeder at 05:44 am, September 10th 2007     —    1 Comment »

More reaction to the Pew poll…

David Brody sees two salient facts.  To my mind, in both instancess Brody reflects more on how Pew asked the questions than the points he tries to make.  But then that is the beauty of polls like this, you can spin them a million ways to Sunday.

The Chicago Sun-Times manages to say almost nothing.  Likewise, the Forth Worth Star-Telegram.

Reuters seems to get it (for once) in their admission that the results are a bit mixed and confusing.  I found this paragraph fascinating:

"Religion does constitute a bar that candidates must successfully clear but the poll suggests it is not very high. … And all the leading candidates seem to be clearing this bar," said Gregory Smith, a research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

That sounds about right to me.  We have a public religion that is a "low bar" – beyond that most American get it, your religious specifics are private.

A Baltimore Sun blog thinks religion is a non-issue for all but Romney.  Not sure I read the results that way, but if we do, that is the definition of bigotry and I can't believe anyone would look evidence of bigotry that squarely in the eye and not decry it.  Think the MSM has an agenda?

Someone is going to make something out of this…

William Buckley pens a great piece defending Romney's change of heart on social issues. 

We have to imagine that there were public men in the age we speak of who, giving thought to slavery, walked into an epiphany of the kind Gov. Romney claims to have walked into in the matter of abortion.

Though entirely accurate, I think Buckley's choice of the term "epiphany" may end up being haunting.  Consider the definition of that term:

    1. an appearance or manifestation, esp. of a deity.
    2. a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.

Given the revelatory nature of the Mormon faith, I cannot help but believe that this will result in mocking and ridicule from the irreligious left.  A little googling reveals that no one to date has made the charge that Moroni appeared to Romney when it comes to his change of heart, but you have to believe with guys like Buckley dropping hints like this, it is going to happen.

Which is the real shame of this - that in watching this issue I am reduced to monitoring the word choice of one the most admired and best conservative writers of my lifetime speaks to a coarsening of the public debate about religion and politics that is nothing short of heinous.

Speaking of making mountains out of molehills…

I wonder if the Deseret News knows that this is just supplying fuel to anti-Mormon fires.  Ancestors are ancestors and have nothing to say about the behavior of people today.  But that hasn't stopped people that are want to make a point where none exists so far.

I am really tired of this…

A Fort Wayne, IN paper asks if Mormons are Christians?  They flat out admit the question is news only because of Romney's candidacy which really has me scratching my head.  It is a debate for educational institutions and denominational enclaves, not newspapers and public opinion polls.

My personal opinion is that when people wonder about this what they are really asking is if Mormonism is consistent with the American public religion which most people think of, quite vaguely, as "Christianity."  (Thus the statement, "America is a Christian nation.") We have made the case on this blog untold times that Mormonism is consistent with that public religion, even if quite heterodox when compared to creedal Christian faiths.

But then the whole point about America's public religion that is it vague in its boundaries.  That is how we have survived as a religiously pluralistic society.  That is what has allowed the plethora of religious comunities to thrive and grow in this nation like no other in history.  It is this fact that has allowed America to soar above its European counterparts by almost every conceivable metric.  In Europe, the mingling of sectarian and national identities has lead to centuries of war, and the near death of Christianity.

But there is a significant strain of people in the nation that want to debate the "Christianity" question not in terms of public religion, but in terms of their own, specific, well-delineated orthodoxy.  But it ends up being a debate over almost nothing.  I have yet to meet a Mormon, and at this point, I've met pretty huge numbers, that would even come close to arguing that they are Christians in any sense resembling the sense that I am a Christian, doctrinally speaking.  They hold tightly and dearly to their distinctives.

Mormons, more than any others in my experience, lay claim to the term "Christian" precisely to lay claim to being part of the public religion.  They make no claims whatsoever to commonality of belief with creedal Christians, save maybe the historical reality of a preacher in Galilee.  When creedal Christians defend the term as vigorously as they often do they are defending a front where no battle has been brought, nor is any expected.

Share

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

Recently Posted:

One Response to “Today’s Reading List – September 10, 2007”

  1. coltakashi on 10 Sep 2007 at 7:35 pm #

    Re: The Deseret News article about Romney’s remote ancestor who deserted from Jophnston’s Army: Obviously the guy was a real soldier (getting the Iron Cross in the Prussian Army [there was no Germany until 20 years later] means you are not a wuss!), and he found the American soldiers he was with unworthy and immoral and could not in conscience support the intent of that force. This is after months of suffering under the harassing tactics of the Mormons! And he was pardoned along with other Mormons, so there’s no legal problem.

    The notion of using this to try to portray something about Romney’s lack of military service is simply dishonest. Romney was in the same draft lottery as I was. HIs number was in the 300s, and mine was 16. He went on with his marriage and school, while I went into ROTC and went to law school on an Air Force scholarship. Frankly, most of the guys in my ROTC program, graduating in 1973, were pulled from active duty because the Vietnam War had wound down and they were just not needed. The military was already transitioning to an all-volunteer force, with better pay and benefits. Romney did all his country asked him to do. He was not dishonorable in any way. For me, it was the only way I could go to law school, and I had a blast and served 20 years. Romney had a different life, but no less honorable. Frankly, the real soldiers don’t mind when someone has decided not to serve. They dislike those who claim to exclude other people from being “real soldiers” on the basis of combat service, when in fact many real airmen served in the Cold War (as I did, at NORAD and SAC), even though we were subject to deployment at any time. Guys like John Kerry who claim to be heroes but put themselves in for Purple Hearts on the basis of minor scratches, who call their fellow sailors war criminals and throw medals over a fence, and embrace the enemies of Americans like Jane Fonda, those are the people most soldiers despise as lying hypocrites. Kerry’s war record was, even at face value, not remarkable, and hardly enough to get him promoted to Lt. Commander, let alone Admiral. It hardly shows him qualified especially to be Commander in Chief. And denigrating service asd a pilot of a sup[ersonic jet carrying nuclear bombs (George W. Bush) shows their willingness to dishonor thousands who served in other capacities that also involved real risk and sacrifice. the whole Democrat attempt to pull the rug out from under American forces in Iraq, and throw away everything achieved there, is disgusting.

    So there is no reason Romney has to have served in the military. NO candidate has all the experience that a president has after serving in office. You need someone who has an understanding of reality and knows the difference between our allies and our enemies. Since Scoop Jackson left the Senate, the Democrats eem to specifically reject anyone with real knowledge of the world.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Michael Kinsley: The Secularist Intellectual As Religious Bigot  |  Today’s Reading List – September 11, 2007 »