Article VI Blog

Compare and Contrast…

Huckabee’s and Romney’s approach to the question of religion in the public square. In 1998, Mike Huckbee said:

Huckabee concluded his speech by recalling his 10th birthday, when he accepted Christ.

“I went to Vacation Bible School for all the wrong reasons — I was told they’d give me all the cookies I could eat and all the Kool-Aid I could drink. But that day I got something better than cookies and Kool-Aid. I got the Savior.

“I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.“

Now, Huckabee used to be a pastor, not a politician, and such talk is typical for pastors, but then that is kind of the point, isn’t it? Note the specificity of Huckabee’s invocation of Christ. Not to mention the near theocratic utterance of taking the whole nation. We are into Pat Robertson territory here. And the contrast with Romney’s speech is stark:

“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

“Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

“They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

“We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’

The difference there is extraordinary. Huckabee is clearly outside the lines of the traditional American understanding of, as Romney quoted Lincoln, “political religion,” as Franklin called it “civic religion” and within the lines of very specific sectarian faith. As John Podhoretz opines:

Mike Huckabee is the first serious Christian identity-politics presidential candidate. He is not running as the only hard-line pro-lifer, though he probably is the only one. He is not running as the most conservative candidate, which, at least on the issues of taxes and foreign policy, he certainly is not. He is running, most prominently, as an evangelical Christian and structuring his appeal to those who share his beliefs. His meta-message: I am one of you. The Mormon from Massachusetts is not. The New York Catholic with the messy private life is not. The sleepy television star is not. I am your brother.

Lowell: Podhoretz is dead-on. I still find myself shaking my head as I consider the situation. As a Mormon, I have long hoped that conservatives of both my faith and of the Evangelical persuasion could achieve at least a modest level of civility in the public square, i.e., disagree on religious matters but make common cause on political matters.

Mormons have a long history of reaching out in that way. As Lou Sheldon told me after the speech at the Bush Library, California’s Proposition 22 (defining marriage as between one man and one woman) would never have passed in 2000 without the vigorous and total support of LDS Church members. We were out there with Evangelicals, planting lawn signs and getting out the vote; and our presence was much larger than any other faith’s.

And yet here we are in 2008: An excellent candidate for president happens to be a Mormon, but he is not running as a Mormon. And who is his chief challenger right now? A former Baptist minister who is unabashedly running as the Evangelical candidate and playing the religion card aggressively. It would be funny if it were not the worst nightmare of people who care about religion maintaining an effective voice in the public square.

Jon Meacham examines this comparison quite closely in the cover story for this week’s Newsweek. Meacham is the writer of one of the better books on the intersection of religion an politics in recent times. In a small, private gathering before The Speech last week, Romney cited Meacham’s book as one of his many references in his preparation. Politically, Meacham is left of where I would be on a number of things and that tends to tilt his book and some of his comments in Newsweek, but the article is fascinating in its contrast of the two “religious” candidates, and it clearly demonstrates how far over the line Huckabee has gone.

It seems clear to me that when it comes to this particular issue we have a clear choice between a pastor and a president. Given that I am voting for a president, between the two, the candidate for whom I would vote for seems obvious.

Can You Believe They Are Still Talking About The Speech . . .

Fred Barnes and Morton Kondrake had at on their weekend show.

Voice of America covers it.

Cybercast News looks at some polling and declares The Speech “sincere.”

Ross Douthat draws, finally somebody does, the more accurate comparison to Al Smith as opposed to JFK. Nonetheless someone focus grouped The Speech and JFK’s. It’s interesting.

Jan Shipps is perhaps the leading non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism around. She wrote a piece analyzing The Speech that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor.

Still, in the way he talked about religious diversity, the nation’s symphony of faiths, the way religious liberty stands at the heart of the American constitutional system, and how religion belongs in the public square, this was a consummate Mormon speech. Moreover, despite its political agenda, it is possible to read what Mr. Romney said as being in harmony with a major effort his church has been making since the 1970s: to be included in the American religious mainstream.

It should be very interesting to note reaction to this piece from certain circles. Those in the Mormon-president-will-aid-Mormon-evangelism camp will likely take these comments to as a “see I told you so” moment with regards to The Speech. What it is, of course, is a statement that when it comes to being religions Americans, we have a great deal in common with Mormons, but some people won’t see that.

Lowell: It’s interesting: As I’ve reflected on and re-read the speech many times, it occurs to me how familiar it feels to me, as a Mormon. Romney is saying the kinds of things I’ve been hearing and saying in church all my life. No one should be surprised or disturbed by that. Mormons are patriotic and believe deeply in America as a chosen land that will remain free as long as its people willingly follow Jesus Christ, but that such discipleship cannot be imposed by coercion. It’s hard for me to see how those fundamental beliefs could possibly upset Evangelicals; I can certainly see how it would upset secularists and atheists.

Romney is not playing this like Robert Novak thinks he should so he is acting remarkably like the Prince of Darkness The Corner calls him. Of course, Bob started this whole thing for Lowell and me; he would hate to be wrong.

Lowell: Robert Novak’s a great American and a prominent political commentator. In 30 years of paying attention to him, however, I have noticed one thing: When prognosticating, he’s almost always wrong. That’s useful to bear in mind.

There is even “meta-coverage.” you know, talking about talking about. In this case it is “post-game” interviews with Romney by ABC and CBS.

Oh yeah, the atheists of the world remain really sore that Romney did not mention them. A fact which proves, I think, a rather important point. Atheists don’t want the absence of religion or they would not be upset at Romney’s failure to mention them. They want an alternative, godless religion. But if that is the case, their efforts to ban religion from public discussion altogether would be self-defeating. Hmmmm….

But the left is definitely on the rampage in the wake of the speech. The Courant and New York Newsday both publish anti-speech tirades. The Newsday piece is based on the old-tired-and-no-longer-true charge of racism against the CJCLDS. Speaking of which, Lawrence O’Donnell is taking heat for his weekend rant on McLaughlin. Yeah, but what about the ratings on “Big Love?”

Lowell: Hugh Hewitt interviewed O’Donnell at length yesterday. Hugh quotes the closing paragraphs of the interview on his blog. If you read nothing else about the interview, read that.

Huckabee’s Problem . . .

When you have things like this and this written on your behalf, you have a religion problem. Huckabee, and his surrogates, have painted a target on themselves by claiming divine intervention on behalf of his candidacy and trying to justify religious discrimination in choices of who to vote for.

When you become so identified, things like that uncovered by Power Line are not just a political problem, they appear a moral and religious one. And you set yourself up for direct religious attack. It is too late to dodge this particular bullet. Even the usually sanguine Instapundit had to get in on this act. Even Pat Buchanan describes this things as a “religious war” and puts the blame squarely on Huckabee.
There are some hard lines in all of this, written into law. Huck is even in danger of crossing those:

Already, Americans United has filed two complaints with the IRS accusing Huckabee’s religious backers outside Iowa of violating their tax-free status.

In an email yesterday, Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council said the following:

Enter the reverse religious test that is being applied. In various settings over the last few days Huckabee has been confronted with articles from nearly a decade ago containing statements on the morality of issues like HIV-AIDS, homosexuality and even the need for spiritual awakening in America. He was basically asked to recant. I am pleased to say that he did not recant.

This morning, for example, the lead story on Drudge was a 1998 article from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporting on a speech that Huckabee gave at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptists calling on the church to wake up following a rash of school shootings. The Drudge headline touted, “Take this nation back for Christ,” a subtle but clear warning to secular elites. Columnist Richard Cohen wasn’t as subtle last week when he said Huckabee is climbing in the polls because of “his obdurate and narrow-minded religious beliefs.”

There is clearly a reverse religious standard being applied to Mike Huckabee, a standard that says there will be no defining religious beliefs.

That’s right Tony! It is expressly unconstitutional to have “defining religious beliefs” in the government of this nation. That does not mean I don’t agree with some of the stances that Huckabee has been attacked for, but to take those stances on the basis of religious conviction alone is to invite precisely this kind of religious examination and perhaps persecution if your religious views are in the minority.

Lowell: When John and I were discussing Tony Perkins’ e-mail, we wondered where Perkins’ (and the FRC’s) outrage and concern have been while Romney has been attacked for his religion.

Also, watch this video clip again. I am alternatively revulsed, angry, and sad as I watch this man divide the GOP and the nation by mixing religion and politics in the most blatant and self-serving manner. He wants to be William Jennings Bryan, but I think he has much more in common with Elmer Gantry, without the womanizing, of course.

In General…

The Question and the race as it is viewed from Australia.

Dennis Prager looks at the big questions:

The reason is — and I have come to this conclusion after a lifetime of interaction with people of almost all faiths and writing about and studying religion — theology does not appear to have much impact on people’s values. Liberal Christians and Jews share virtually no theological beliefs yet think alike about virtually every important social value. So, too, conservative Christians and conservative Jews share virtually no theological beliefs, yet they think alike about virtually every important social value.

Cal Thomas is one of the most religiously pure voices in political commentary. He looks at the religion issue squarely and sounds exactly right:

I never saw any data that proved a connection between faith in Jesus and the ability to repair a car at a reasonable cost, so I usually went with the shop that did the best job at the lowest price and didn’t bother to ask if the repairman went to church.

Voters who require statements of faith from presidential candidates risk disappointment. Many evangelicals who voted for Jimmy Carter regretted having done so when they saw his post-election policies and what they regarded as his incompetence as president. Bill Clinton could quote Scripture, but not many would hold him up as an evangelical icon, given his roving eye and impeachment for lying under oath.

Read the whole thing.

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• The Media Double Standard and The Incredible Chutzpah of The Obama Administration
• The Return of Wright
• More Religious Values That Matter – Right and Wrong Turns
• Religious Values That Matter
• The Seeds of Social War