Today’s Reading List – October 10, 2007
Those Mormon Politicians
Well, the most politically powerful and prominent Mormon in the United States spoke at Brigham Young University yesterday. Got any guesses who it was?
Hint: It wasn't Mitt Romney. It wasn't even a Republican.
Yes, it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
"My faith and political beliefs are deeply intertwined. I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it," Reid said.
Sen. Reid is a lawyer, and I suspect that deep down, he knows he would have a tough time making that case to very many Mormons. Even so, it is not an unreasonable argument at all.
By the way, Reid is by all accounts a convinced, practicing Mormon. I wonder if Jacob Weisberg thinks that disqualifies Reid from serving as Majority Leader?
John comments: Do we really need to draw the line here? One of the reasons religion cannot be a deciding factor for a political vote is because it simply is not predictive. Given the constant debates over who is and who is not a genuine [fill-in-the-blank] orthodoxy becomes a pretty fluid concept. Hence some of Dobson's less savory comments about Thompson an/or Guiliani. Of course, Dr. Dobson is entitled to his opinion on these matters, but giving such considerations to force of political will is a recipe for the kind of sectarian squabbling that has killed religion in Europe, while it thrived here.
About The Speech
Ramesh Ponnuru agrees with us: "[A] speech focused on denouncing anti-Mormon bigotry would pretty obviously be a dumb move."
Meanwhile, in Salt Lake City . . .
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held its semi-annual general conference. The old argument about whether Mormons are Christians got some attention in the Deseret News. The whole article is an interesting read for followers of this blog. Also, Elder Jeffrey Holland, a member of the Church's Council of Twelve Apostles, gave what I think is the definitive modern statement on what the Church thinks about its status as a Christian denomination. You can watch him here and listen here; the text of the address is not available yet.
John comments: I grow weary of this discussion. So much depends on where the question is asked. If my systematic theology instructor in seminary asked me me I would have to answer one way. However, in a discussion aboutpolitics in American, I would have to answer that Mormons are allowed to call themselves whatever they want. I would have to defend their right to call themselves whatever they want, and I would have to take heat from that self-same instructor for doing so.
The point is that the question itself in the context of Romney's run is not about definitions – it is about legitimacy. Most people, Mormon and creedal simply do not care about the theological considerations enough to answer the question with any sort of intellectual rigor.
Consider the response that has been given to a comment President Bush made regarding Islam the other day. It was comemented upon heavily by Cal Thomas and Joe Carter.
Said the president:
"…I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God." Later in the interview, the president repeated his statement: "I believe there is a universal God. I believe the God that the Muslim prays to is the same God that I pray to. After all, we all came from Abraham. I believe in that universality."
I am betting you already know that both Thomas and Carter found problems with this statement. But I think cal Thomas, inadvertently summed it up best when he paraphrased Moynihan:
To paraphrase a remark often attributed to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, everyone is entitled to his or her own faith, but everyone is not entitled to define the central doctrines of that faith.
The fact of the matter is that the president was not "defining the central doctrines" of Christianity. he was; however, defining the central doctrines of the American public religion. George Bush, in running and assuming the presidency must, and has, in his public utterances set his personal faith to the side and spoken only within the context of the public religion – a vague faith expression designed to be inclusive, for the sake of the nation. It is an important distinction that we often forget.
And Finally . . .
Lynne Cheney, the daughter of a disaffected Mormon, has thoughts about Romney's struggle with The Question:
Cheney, who recounts her Mormon roots in a new book, “Blue Skies, No Fences,” said there is more religious criticism of Romney than there was of his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, when he ran for president 40 years ago.
“It surprises me because it wasn't that way when his father ran,” she said. “So I think we need to kind of say take a deep breath here. This is a country where people have the right to worship freely.”
Such a refreshingly elementary thought.
Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post