Another Religious Strike from the Democrats, the Push Polls, and More
Told You It Was Going To Happen . . .
We have contended all along that the left viewed Mormons and creedal Christians in essentially the same way. well a recent press release from the DNC, reprinted by this blogger, not once, but twice, makes my case in spades. Just a little sample:
Romney failed to say whether the issues he agrees with Jones on include Jones’ divisive rhetoric and the university’s shameful history of denying admission to African-American students, banning interracial dating until 2000, refusing to honor Martin Luther King, publishing textbooks that called Catholicism a “false religion,” and banning gay alumni from campus. Despite the school’s history, and despite the fact that Bob Jones III himself calls Catholicism and Mormonism “cults which call themselves Christian,” Romney decided that his political ambitions are more important than sending a clear message that those policies and statements are wrong.
Religion talk in politics is a two-edged sword.
Oh, but this piece from the New York Daily News is so over-the-top in its left-leaning attack on Romney’s faith as to defy rationality. It begins by laying out, as if it needed to be laid out again, the theological difference between Mormons and creedal Christians, but then comes the punch line:
But forget the historical and theological disputes. I have no quarrel with the nearly 6 million Americans who practice this religion – but I do have questions for the one among them who wants me to vote him into the White House.
In particular, I want to know more about Bishop Romney’s beliefs and actions related to the Mormon religion’s odious and longstanding practices of racial segregation.
Brigham Young, an early father of the Mormon Church, preached, “If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain [those with dark skin], the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
In addition to this death penalty for race-mixing, Mormons barred blacks from becoming priests or taking part in the religion’s holiest rituals. This went on until 1978. Romney, who was 31 when Mormon elders officially scrapped the church’s racist doctrines, says he broke down and cried when the change was announced.
I really hope he did more than wait till the end and weep: I’d like to know what Bishop Romney grew up believing on this subject, exactly what he taught to others – and what steps, if any, he took to battle discrimination when doing so was at odds with his religion.
A clear explanation is the least we should expect from a candidate who wears his faith on his sleeve.
Early in the piece he accuses Romney of speaking incompatible statements, well what precisely does he think “I have no quarrel, but . . .” constitutes. I also hate to break it to this guy but a lot of churches practiced segregation and even supported slavery historically. The stories I could tell you about my grandparents’ church in Mississippi, in the 60’s and 70’s . . . and it was Presbyterian!
Lowell notes: The piece, By Errol Louis, exudes anger from nearly every sentence. Nothing wrong with that, but it does detract from his logic and credibility. Calling Romney “Bishop Romney” is clearly meant to be snide, and reminds me of the way Rush Limbaugh refers to Jesse Jackson as “the Reverend Jackson,” with an ironic inflection to the word “Reverend.” Also, the quote from Brigham Young is probably apocryphal, or perhaps from something called the Journal of Discourses, which has never been considered an accurate record, and is notorious for containing inaccurate and often strange-sounding statements by early Mormon leaders. It is a favorite source for anti-Mormon writers. Also, the notion that Romney “wears his faith on his sleeve” is pretty comical to readers of this blog.
Actual Balanced Reporting On The Question…
From Wayne Washington at South Carolina’s The State:
Stressing faith could be a smart move in South Carolina.
A recent Winthrop/ETV poll showed that 90 percent of black South Carolinians say religion is important to them. Black voters are expected to account for half of those casting ballots in the Democratic primary.
Those who have thought about the nexus of religion and politics say voters do want to know if a candidate is guided or comforted in tough times by their religious faith.
But there are risks.
This piece is good enough to merit further investigation and more extensive comment than time currently allows. More to come…
On The Push Polls . . .
. . . one N.H. paper joins the call for investigation and action:
The very act of calling a voter under the guise of conducting an independent survey and then using that opportunity to intentionally spread unflattering information about other candidates is an affront to our democratic process.
In New Hampshire, it is also happens to be against the law. An individual engaged in this type of activity is required to identify the candidate being supported, as well as to provide the polling firm’s telephone number. Neither was done in these particular cases.
With the date of the New Hampshire primary now less than seven weeks away, we urge the attorney general’s office to give this investigation the highest of priorities.
While no one is going to go to jail over this, it’s imperative to send a clear message that these underhanded tactics are not welcome here in the first-in-the-nation primary state.
Amen to that!
More debunking of the “Romney dunnit” meme, the persistence of which I find totally baffling.
Why Won’t This Just Go Away?
Do you remember the time in school when the cool kid got “caught” talking to the “uncool” kid and then immediately went into a Clintonesque denial of what was patently obvious. And then afterwards the cool kid went to extraordinary lengths to prove the uncool kid was not part of the cool bunch.
By this point, everybody, I mean everybody, knows that theologically speaking, Mormonism is quite different than creedal Christianity. And yet, people keep insisting on telling us about it. Why are so many people going to such great lengths to “prove” that Mormons are not “in the group?” The distinctions are obvious – at this point it is beginning to seem simply childish and punitive.
Oh, and by the way, COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN!
Finally…
This Salt Lake Tribune piece may have a point.
Likewise, when his Mormon faith is questioned, it isn’t enough to stoically deflect the subject. I think most Americans expect that Romney should be deeply disappointed by such religious intolerance and even angered by those who characterize a substantial and legitimate Christian denomination as an unworthy, non-Christian cult.
An expression of true disappointment and anger from Romney would clearly be in order and would do much to turn the tables on those who denigrate his faith.
Not so sure Romney needs to get in the tall grass on Christian/non-Christian, and a speech, never, but a flash of anger, an emotion-filled retort, like we saw in the radio thing a while back is a mighty fine idea.
Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
madison on 26 Nov 2007 at 11:43 am #
Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Deity. Mormons, along with Jehovah’s Witnesses, do not. Christians believe that God – which includes Jesus Christ! – is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omniprsent. Mormons do not. By the way, Mormons consider Christianity to be “apostate Christianity” and their own religion “restored Christianity” So, why is calling Mormonism “a substantial and legitimate Christian denomination” not denigrating the faith of Christians? Why are Christians obligated to respect Mormons as Christians just because they say they are and just because there are several million of them? And if that is the case, who else gets to call themselves Christians? And would Mormons accept them if they did?
These are legitimate questions that Romney is going to have to answer. Otherwise, when Christians find out what Mormons actually believe (and the Democrats and media will make sure of that), all Romney is going to accomplish by going around saying “Jesus is my savior but not my God” (which violates John 20:28) and “the God that I do believe in is not a spirit” (which violates John 4:24) is offend a lot of Christians. There is no way around it. It would be like a Scientologist going around claiming that Joseph Smith was a prophet of Scientology and that the Scientologists are the true Mormons, and that instead of being a “theo – nerd” by talking about the differences between Scientologists and Mormons on doctrine and other irrelevant things like that, let’s talk about what we have in common, like values and how we both help people overcome poverty and drug addiction.
Would you go for that? NO. So why do you expect Christians to? The thing is that one does not have to be a Christian to be a solid principled social conservative. The only reason why Romney is going around saying “Jesus is my savior” is because he is determined to force Christians to accept him as one of them on some level, and be in position to denounce them as a bunch of bigots if they do not. Well, that may give him – and other self righteous people – some solace, but we all know that the result would be a Clinton – Giuliani presidential race, with Clinton being the winner. Romney needs to stop putting his personal feelings ahead of the interests of the country and stop trying to get evangelical Christians to validate his candidacy.
James Landrith on 26 Nov 2007 at 10:02 pm #
Hello John. I followed my site activity reports here and would like to compliment you and the other bloggers on an attractive and easy to navigate website.
Yes, the DNC texts are on my website and presumably published “not once, but twice.” One is in the form of a press release – and filed in my press release section – which includes press releases sent by me, as part of a coalition I participate in, or mentioning me or my work. The other – which appeared on the DNC website as an article – is included in my press coverage folder.
As I have a bit of a history with regard to Bob Jones University and their interracial marriage policies – I reprinted the texts – and then issued a blog entry with a disclaimer (much like your own that I’ve read on this site regarding Gov. Romney’s campaign) to the effect that the DNC’s use of my name in campaign materials is a factual matter and not an endorsement of any particular candidate.
I’m not concerned with Gov. Romney’s religious beliefs. As I took my lumps, death threats, and tons of hate mail from “Christians” (I use quotes when someone identifies themself as such but grossly exhibits un-Christian-like behaviour) I republished the texts on my website and issued yet another blog entry that chronicled the history of that particular issue in an effort to stymie such nasty behaviour yet again. Perhaps it makes sense to link the DNC texts to the disclaimer blog entry so that those who come by it via google or other sources will understand why it appears on my website or why my name is mentioned.
Again, I’m not concerned one bit with Gov. Romney’s religious beliefs. I want your readers to be perfectly clear on that – lest they be misled into thinking I’m some kind of evil demon who has it in for the Governor on the basis of his Mormon beliefs.
I consider any statements to the contrary or intentional inferences toward that direction to be bearing false witness.
Lowell Brown on 26 Nov 2007 at 10:07 pm #
Dear Madison: We’re grateful for your interest in our blog, and your comments about politics are welcome. If, however, you insist on coming here and attacking Mormon beliefs (or even seeking to debate those beliefs) rather than discussing the issues we address here, then we’re going to have to ask that you take that debate somewhere else. That’s not the purpose of this blog.
By the way, I do not want to imply that I think you have described any Mormon beliefs accurately. To my mind, you have caricatured them– at best! But let’s stop there and talk about politics.
Best, Lowell Brown