Today’s Reading List – October 18, 2007 | Article VI Blog

Still Rolling…

EFM reprints an email from James Bopp endorsing Romney. Like DeMoss, Bopp has been in the Romney camp for quite a while, but apparently no one really noticed until now.

Another important person that has at least said Romney's religion should not be an issue for a very long time is Catholic Bishop Charles Chaput. He was featured prominently in the Hewitt book. (Even more prominently than Lowell and I – go figure. ) Anyway, he was recently awarded the "2007 Family Values Awards by . . . drum roll please . . . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Gee! happiness between Mormons and creedal Christians is breaking out all over the place.

Even Al Mohler agrees! From his interview with Hugh Hewitt on the radio yesterday, concerning Bob Jones III's endorsement:

HH: Now do you think that this effectively dissipates the Mormon issue that there’s been so much conversation about? You and I have talked about it in the past, and I interviewed you for the book, et cetera, but does this put that one to bed?

AM: You know, I don’t think it puts it to bed. I think it, though, gets it into some pajamas, perhaps. Let’s put it that way.

H: (laughing)

AM: It’s moving it in that direction, because I think what’s taking place is that Evangelicals are having to rethink a lot of this whole political question. It’s been easy in recent election cycles. Evangelicals have basically known here is someone who looks like us, sounds like us, believes like us, goes to Church like us, who on the issues, is right where we want him. And so we’re going to be very clearly aligned behind this one candidate. We’ve had to grow up as an Evangelical movement. And one of the big questions we’ve been having to ask is what exactly do we expect from a candidate, and does that mean that we can’t vote for a candidate who in some life particular, and something as particular as worldview and religious commitment, is in a different place than we are, but will further the goals and protect the gains on moral and cultural issues that are central Evangelical concerns. I think that’s been a maturation process. I think we’re seeing it before our eyes.

Those are amazing words from a man who has quite publicly worried previously that casting a vote for Romney would enhance Mormon evangelism! Kudos to Dr. Mohler for his forthrightness in this circumstance. (BTW, while you are hanging around Hugh Hewitt's site, you might want to listen to the podcast of the hour with Mohler – Wednesday 10/17/07 Christopher Hitchens, Al Mohler, Jonathon Martin. Politico's Martin tends to agree that this is the break that puts The Question to bed.)

The poor press, "They won't have The Question to kick around any more."

Or will they? The Salt Lake Tribune describes Romney's forthcoming appearance at the Voters Value Summit as "a test." CBS reports the Bob Jones III endorsement with a bit of incredulity, And the Dallas Morning News reports on a local pastor that I just have to think smells a way to get some press – leading to the usual statements by the usual suspects.

Why the hesitancy to believe what so obviously seems to be happening? It's simple, the press has spent the last two terms closely identifying Bush and Evangelicals, even the Religious Right in general, with each other and I think this is a bit of Bush Derangement Syndrome rubbing off. Given their view of things for the last several years, the Religious Right just must be a bunch of close-minded bigots.

In my opinion, a Romney victory with heavy creedal Christian backing would remove a vital weapon from the left/MSM arsenal aimed in religion's direction. Although — I still think it will get really ugly in the general if Romney is the nominee. The Clintons are just too good at the low blow not to use it.

Blogging Matters…

According to the Washington Times:

Gossip may do more to shape a person's opinion than facts they know to be true, even when the chit-chat contradicts the evidence, according to a new study.

This is important for this blog because "the gossip" about Mormons is quite contrary to the evidence.

Blogging, particularly in "the tail," is an online form of gossip. If you are concerned about the issues that this blog confronts, may I suggest you start talking over the fence, virtually and in 3-D.

On Other Fronts…

William Buckley thinks Giuliani is the one with the religion problem.

Joel Osteen, pastor of America's current largest congregation, says Romney's religion is no big deal. What's interesting is that Osteen draws almost universal condemnation from most creedal Christians who view his particular flavor of faith as a bit to happy-clappy and his umbrella a little too big. (Forgive me, but it would take volumes to describe the genuine theological issues.) Osteen's opinion might just hurt Romney with the bunch that are currently coming into the camp more than it will help.

Should one link to a complete idiot? Ted Rall on religion in this election, and particularly Romney:

Mitt Romney is one-upping McCain, misrepresenting Mormonism as well as the secular nature of American government. "The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background," he said in New Hampshire. "They're American values, if you will." Or if you won't. As The New York Times notes, "Mormons do not believe in the concept of the unified Trinity; the Book of Mormon is considered to be sacred text, alongside the Bible; and Mormons believe that God has a physical body and human beings can eventually become like God." Also, the Mormon Jesus will eventually return to Independence, Missouri. "Much like." Right.

Uh, for the record – trinitarian matters, conceptions of the Godhead, eschatology, and canon are matters of theology NOT values. So, Romney misrepresents nothing. Of course understanding that would mean actually understanding something, anything, about religion.

Speaking Philosophically…

On Faith wonders about the Dalai Lama this week:

The Dalai Lama says 'All major religious traditions carry basically the same message: That is love, compassion and forgiveness.' Do you agree?

The Dalai Lama's statement is a heck of a double-edged sword. Most religions will intersect in various places, but they need to be distinct to remain on their own so there is generally much more effort poured into emphasizing the difference, than looking at the similarities. There is also that whole truth thing gumming up the works.

Which brings me to this post from some very smart academics in Colorado. The conclusion of the post illustrates the point I just made:

Now according to Romney this should be a matter of indifference, because, after all, what counts is whether or not one has "faith." In this way a disagreement about, for example, the divinity of Christ – something which innumerable people have been burnt at the stake for denying – is transformed into a trivial detail, of no real importance.

With "faith" like this, who needs atheism?

But consider the meat of the argument:

What would one think of someone who said that it was important for our leaders to be "persons of politics," while remaining indifferent to just what sort of political beliefs they held? Imagine taking the view that it made no difference whether one was a Maoist or a royalist or a Republican, as long as one's political beliefs were sincere.

Or consider a scientist who claims that, while he personally believes that global warming is going to destroy civilization, his opinion has no more value than that of a scientist who denies that global warming represents any sort of serious problem. The important thing, he says, isn't the truth or falsehood of their respective views, but rather that he and the holder of the diametrically opposed opinion are both "persons of science."

These analogies are entirely insufficient to describe the relationship between religion and politics. These analogies relate to things of this world that have direct natural consequence. Religion is a set of beliefs, generally about the supernatural, that have only indirect consequence on a person's actions and thoughts in this natural world.

Further, this argument ignores that fact that different religions do have places where they intersect and can often result in the same natural consequences, even with differing beliefs about the supernatural.

The great American public religion is best described as a generic "faith," primarily in some sort of supernatural accountability that holds the citizenry to a common ethical framework. Without such, government must take that morally and ethically authoritative role and then we are on the road to totalitarianism. Alternately, if we conflate the governmental authority with religious authority, we arrive at the same totalitarian destination.

The divinity of Christ is in fact a matter of enormous consequence about eternity and the after life. But until I can be made to understand how the Mormon understanding of Jesus and my own result in consequentially different results with regards to ethics and public policy, it ends there.

Lowell: I am on the road this week, and on this particular evening I've tried mightily to come up with something to add. But John has outdone himself once again. Amen, I say.

Share and Enjoy: