OK, for regular readers, this week should have demonstrated the REAL reason we have argued against a speech - trying to do this blog’s task this week has been overwhelming. (Please remember Lowell and I, and those that help us - Sonja, Dale, Asher - have “day jobs” that pay actual bills.) [Lowell: Well, we used to, at least. ;-)] Anyway, things seemed to have slowed down for the weekend. Maybe things can return to “normal” by Monday. The blue box will contain the latest through the weekend. There are a few pieces of note this Saturday morning.

Some things are not helpful . . .

The Los Angeles Times does a piece on Evangelical reaction:

But will it help Romney, a Mormon, win over the key voting bloc of conservative Christians?

The broad consensus: probably not.

“I’m not sure it’s going to work for evangelical voters,” said Collin Hansen, editor-at-large at the evangelical monthly Christianity Today. “Pure and simple, there are very dramatic differences” between the Mormon faith and other Christian traditions. “People wonder, does he really believe that — and if so, can I really trust him?”

What Romney’s speech did is draw a line in the sand. He spoke about the great American traditions of religious freedom and tolerance. He pointed out, simply, that if as a religious person you wish to participate in the great American discussion, you’d better be on the right side of the line.

The press knows this too and they are running around look for people on the wrong side of the line so they can paint the religious right, Evangelicals, whatever label you want to us, as precisely the close-minded, “easily-lead,” ‘bots they expect us to be.

Lowell: I don’t know much about Collin Hansen, but his comment leaves much to be desired. If a politician believes in the miraculous, he cannot be trusted? And this, from an editor of a respected religious publication? Hanson should read Jason Lee Steorts’ piece on NRO, “Rational Questions.” He’ll be properly embarrassed if he does.

World Magazine finds the lunatic fringe at the speech and treats them as if they have legitimacy, when their tactics robbed them of it completely. There were two of your typical sign-carrying, slogan chanting opposition groups in evidence. One was a group of atheistic Paul-pods. This group was reasonably well behaved, primarily setting themselves up to be the backdrop for most of the TV coverage. It was the anti-Mormon religious zealots, people whose theology I more or less agree with that proved to be a total embarrassment. I witnessed a confrontation between them and Carl Cameron of FOXNews as they insisted on shouting over his stand-up. These people did not do my religious beliefs any favors whatsoever, and for World Magazine, one of the leading Evangelical voices in publishing to give them any credence at all just adds to the shame. Not to mention the fact it is just flat out lazy reporting.

Lowell: Just to be specific here, there were all of three of those anti-Mormon protesters, holding a sign that said “Joseph lied.” Apparently that’s all you need to do to get quoted in World magazine. By contrast, when we spoke with Carl Cameron after his little set-to with that same threesome, Cameron dismissed them by saying “They’re a dime a dozen,” and moved on to another topic.

And Some Things Are…

The Catholic News Agency interviews some leading Catholics on their reactions. Catholics have a long history of political action. Their sophistication so far outweighs Evangelicals that it can be daunting. You do know that the Catholic Church is the largest church in the US by membership. A Catholic/Mormon coalition could just set Evangelicals down pretty hard. Of course, Catholic political sophistication also means great political diversity inside the church. My point is simple that Evangelicals could be served by some lessons from their Catholic brethren.

Lowell: A personal observation: I think we can all learn some important things from Catholics. In my experience as a committed Mormon, I generally have a much more comfortable time interacting with my Catholic acquaintances than with Evangelicals. For some reason, Catholics seem generally to have an accepting attitude toward all comers. I’m afraid many Evangelicals, once they have learned I’m a Mormon, have tended to look at me as if I had two heads. I never feel that way around Catholics. Evangelicals, for all I know, feel odd when they are in the company of Mormons. But my Catholic acquaintances, with their general lack of hard religious edges, simply seem more secure in their faith and culture than others. Again, an example to emulate.

Update from Lowell: Hugh Hewitt devoted his show yesterday to the speech and has a lengthy roundup on his blog today. Yes, Hugh is pro-Romney and loved the speech, but he has a lot of impressive company, all transcripted and podcasted there for anyone who wants to read or hear: Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, James Dobson and others.

John Updates Sunday Morning

Hey Lowell, don’t forget us in that radio commentary mix!

So, when you want to say something really, totally outrageous in response to teh speech, apparently you run off an publish it in the London newspapers. Thus acted “Mr. Christianist,” Andrew Sullivan in the Time of London.

Theodemocracy: the blending of government with a universally Christian populace in which faith is the prerequisite of public office. This is the vision of America that Romney is proposing. He has behind him the power brokers of the Protestant right, the theocons of the Catholic right, the Mormon church and the vested interests of a Republican party elite that, in the wake of George W Bush, wants to extend the theodemocratic principles of an antisecular movement.

Now first of all, he wrote and published this piece in a nation that, UNLIKE America, has a state established religion. Can you say “Ironic?” Secondly, Romney puts forth one of the best defenses of the traditional American understanding of the intersection religion and politics that has been delivered in several decades and Sullivan is going to label it derisively?

Sullivan is reduced to the whining pleas of a child, “It’s just not fair that most people believe in God and I don’t!” Come on Sullivan, nobody proposed to take away your right to be an atheist. Nobody proposed to take away your right to be gay. You will not be put on trial for being a heretic. Lighten up just a little.

But the most important lesson from Sullivan’s rant is his combination, as if we were some sort of cabal, of Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons. Clarifies the real battles lines, doesn’t it?
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, Issues, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, The Speech, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Stuff That Has Been Hanging Around
• Wrong-Headed Blogging
• Some Things Are A Little Hard To Swallow…
• Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
• The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
• Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
• An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
• 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
• Exploring the Line
• So Much for “Adieu”