Today’s Reading List – October 16, 2007
Added after posting – HOT! Off the presses:
A top official at Bob Jones University, the Evangelical Christian school with a history of anti-Mormon rhetoric, plans to throw his weight behind Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university’s college of arts and sciences, said he believes the former Massachusetts governor is the only Republican candidate who both stands a chance of winning the White House and will reliably implement the anti-abortion, antigay marriage, pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives.
They do not come more fundamentalist, more hardcore creedal Christian, than BJU. The question is, is this a leak or are the floodgates open? We'll know in the next few weeks.
It will be very interesting to watch the general reporting of this. Bob Jones is every anti-religious soul's favorite target when it comes to their perception of religious intolerance on the part of Christians. My guess is heads are expanding towards explosion in editorial offices throughout the nation as they try to figure out how to cover this non-sequitur in their understanding of religion and politics.
Lowell: Mark my words: If evangelicals start to support Romney in large numbers, most of the MSM will simply turn on Romney as having been co-opted by the "dark side."
What?!?!?!…
The Salt Lake Tribune put up an unsigned editorial late yesterday that is just nonsensical.
Mitt Romney appears to have decided that to run successfully for president of the United States, he must run away from the issue of his Mormonism. He's wrong about that. Just as John F. Kennedy faced down the ugly attacks of anti-Catholic bigots in 1960, Romney should confront head-on the question of whether a Mormon is ill-suited to be president because of his faith.
"Run away from the issue of his Mormonism"? Has Romney ever denied he was Mormon? No, he owns proudly his faith. He has explained on numerous occasions how his faith affects his political actions.
With regards to "the question of whether a Mormon is ill-suited to be president because of his faith," that question has never been answered about ANY faith taken as a religion. Even JFK's oft misunderstood speech to pastors was about how HIS Roman Catholic faith affected HIS political actions. As Mark DeMoss has said, the question is not, "Can I vote for a Mormon?" But rather, the question is "Can I vote for this Mormon?"
This is a call for Romney to undertake full-blown Mormon apologetics, and this marks the first time in my recollection that such a call has come from a newspaper. Such calls have come from religious circles, but not secular ones. One must suspect some other agenda here . . . .
Lowell adds some local perspective: I spent my first 26 years as a Salt Lake City resident, and I guess I am an example of how "you can take the boy out of Salt Lake, but you can't Salt Lake out of the boy." Throughout its history the Salt Lake Tribune has openly billed itself "the opposition," the independent voice that stands up to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, speaks truth to power, stands up for liberal causes, endorses Democrats, etc.
With that in mind, I have to smile as the Tribune urges Mitt Romney to be courageous and not "run away" from his Mormonism. Something tells me the ink-stained wretches at the Trib would love nothing more than to be reporting on Romney's travails as he addresses such favorite Tribune topics as the Mountain Meadows Massacre, polygamy, Mormon temple ceremonies, and the like. It would be wonderful sport for them, and for anyone who is hostile to religious conservatives and political conservatives in general.
How about that…
George Will is writing about the social workers code of ethics, but his WaPo column yesterday opened with some pretty amazing words:
In 1943, the Supreme Court, affirming the right of Jehovah's Witnesses children to refuse to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag in schools, declared: "No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." Today that principle is routinely traduced, coast to coast, by officials who are petty in several senses.
That Supreme Court decision sounds like awfully good words to me.
Quick Links…
Interesting background on Evangelicals and politics. Not real newsy, but nice to have it all summarized like that.
What Article VI extremism looks like.
Lowell: Here's what New York Times political-religious reporting looks like. Note that when Republican candidates travel East to address "Christian conservatives at the Values Voter Summit," that's a "pilgrimage;" and Romney "will be looking to dispel doubts about the authenticity of his relatively recent conversion from supporter of abortion rights to opponent, as well as suspicions about his Mormon faith."
Suspicions? Just what is it that conservative creedal Christians "suspect" about Mormonism? Do words matter anymore, or do Times reporters simply have to cast issues in the world of the religious in a negative light?
John gets snarky: Why Lowell, reporting is reporting. The facts are the facts. They could not possibly use something as unimportant as word choice or tone to convey editorial comment in a news piece. Could they?
A SPECIAL FINALLY…
Evangelicals For Mitt's David French announces his impending deployment to Iraq. Thanks for your service David, important words that cannot possibly convey the debt I as a citizen owe you and your military colleagues.
Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post