Article VI Blog

After the last two weeks on this blog, for a day to be as quiet on our portfolio as yesterday was makes it almost seem that there is no news. And yet there is stuff to talk about…

Take For Example…

. . . Findlaw, a web site designed to supply information and resources to lawyers. Now, lawyers are the most political creatures on the planet, but most I know are the antithesis of the theo-nerd. Nonetheless, look what we found there by Marci Hamilton.

But the American press has not provided a clear answer to the inevitable and crucial follow-up question: How do Mormon beliefs differ from those of evangelical Christians and others?

There it is, the theo-nerd question! Of what relevance, Marci, is the answer to that question to presidential politics? What more, if you did some actual research before spouting off you might have found this blog and found links to dozens of articles in the press answering precisely the question you ask. Or you might have visited any of the thousands of web sites that answer that question. Give me a break here!

Few things are more fundamental to the practice of law than understanding relevance and doing research. Of all the places . . . .

Lowell: Well, there’s always advocating for a cause, and that may be what interests Marci more than finding “a clear answer to the inevitable and crucial follow-up question.“

Then There Is . . .

. . . This guy at Townhall who flat out does not get it.

Governor Huckabee recently asked a writer for the New York Times magazine if Mormons didn’t believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers (a comment, by the way, that Huckabee has since apologized for). When the Associated Press picked up on the initial story, accusations of bigotry germinated in the blogosphere and spread like a virus through media, both old and new. Hugh Hewitt implied that by asking such a question Governor Huckabee might be a closet anti-Semite or an anti-Catholic bigot. But a simple visit to www.lds.org—an official LDS website—will readily show that the answer implied in Governor Huckabee’s question is the answer given by the LDS church! Is the LDS church bigoted against itself?

Every God-fearing American ought to be familiar with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. A man who holds to those teachings certainly is not disqualified from holding the office of president on that basis alone. But conservative evangelical Christians, who hold to the faith once for all delivered to the saints and who desire to defend that faith, are reasonable to ask themselves what a Mormon in the White House would do to elevate the profile of a false religion that presents itself as a form of Christianity.

Let’s see, we just spent the better part of the last several weeks pillorying Huckabee for precisely trying to “elevate the profile” of his faith. Which is the point. Americans in politics don’t do such things. That is why the inquiry is unacceptable and bigoted.

What we see here is classic projection. Because there is a certain brand of creedal Christianity that would use the White House to do such “profile elevation,” they assume that everyone would. What they fail to realize is that that act, whether for their faith or any other, is a disqualifier for the office.

Lowell: I know this is a touchy area, but this needs to be said. The Townhall writer, Paul Edwards, is described in his post as “a pastor.” I suggest he has a conflict of interest in expressing any concern that a Mormon’s election as president would “elevate the profile of a false religion.” Whatever else might be said about Mitt Romney and his defenders, they do not make their living off their co-religionists, and they lose nothing financially when a Mormon decides to leave that church and become an Evangelical. The opposite is true of people like Mr. Edwards, and of any evangelical pastor who raises the (dubious) complaint that Romney’s election might make Mormonism more respectable. I am not saying pastors like Edwards should be silent, only that when we read their writings mixing politics and religion we need to keep a few grains of salt handy.

By the way, K-Lo asks:

Did anyone consider what Mike Huckabee is doing for civil society by playing religious games at his LDS opponent’s expense?

An after-thought from John: Lowell mentioned yesterday Richard Land’s statement that there is more movement of membership between Southern Baptists and LDS than any other faith brands. Putting on my seminarian hat for just a moment, that is an outstanding transition from a theological standpoint – a pretty big leap. At the moment, I cannot think of stronger evidence that theology is not that big a deal in many decisions that people make.

What Did Huck Know And When Did He Know It?

One is honor-bound to take an apology at face value, but Huck’s protestations of ignorance about Mormon doctrine just are not ringing true. EFM has unearthed that Huck was a keynoter at a Baptist conference in Salt Lake City designed precisely to “unmask Mormonism.” While Slate looks at seminary catalogs. For the record, my first exposure to Mormon doctrine came long before seminary – I had a Mormon friend in high school; however, when I was in seminary a “comparative religions” or “cults and sects” course was pretty much mandatory.

Not to mention the fact the New York Times Magazine reporter who was interviewing Huckabee calls the veracity of Huck’s explanations into question. That’s Reverend Huckabee, by the way. Even the NYTimes is onto this game:

But in the aftermath of the apologies, both the Clinton and Huckabee campaigns kept the original slurs alive through a series of interviews, raising questions about the sincerity of their apologies . . . .

Lowell: Jim Geraghty’s NRO piece from yesterday, “Huck’s Spectacularly Unpersuasive Defenders,” is pretty hard-hitting and seems to capsulize the concerns of many about Huck’s “Christian leader” campaign:

. . . one shouldn’t have to be an evangelical to “get” Huckabee. His campaign has been marked by a disturbing pattern — he says something that appears to be a strikingly controversial statement intertwining his faith and modern politics, it gets a negative response, and then we are reassured that we didn’t really hear what we heard; that his words had a much more innocuous meaning. It’s hinted that the benevolent interpretation was obvious to evangelicals, and that only those on the outside would interpret such comments uncharitably; as his campaign spokesman put it regarding the “not human” comment, “most people” would recognize what “most Christians” do.

Once or twice it’s believable; after that it starts to sound like that old refrain, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Ouch. And Rich Lowry, in “Huckacide” today, wonders about the long-term success of running as the Evangelical candidate:

[Huckabee's] first TV ads in Iowa touted him as a “Christian leader,” and his target audience of evangelicals has responded. But according to a Pew poll released in early December, only 1 in 7 nonevangelical Republicans support him in Iowa and 1 in 20 nonevangelicals in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

John with an early morning addition: Peggy Noonan absolutely SLAMS Huckabee for playing the religion card.

Mike Huckabee is in the lead due, it appears, to voter approval of the depth and sincerity of his religious beliefs as lived out in his ministry as an ordained Southern Baptist. He flashes “Christian leader” over his picture in commercials; he asserts his faith is “mainstream”; his surrogates speak of Mormonism as “strange” and “definitely a factor.” Mr. Huckabee said this summer that a candidate’s faith is “subject to question,” “part of the game.”

He tells the New York Times that he doesn’t know a lot about Mitt Romney’s faith, but isn’t it the one in which Jesus and the devil are brothers? This made me miss the old days of Gore Vidal’s “The Best Man,” in which a candidate started a whispering campaign that his opponent’s wife was a thespian.

Mr. Huckabee has of course announced that he apologizes to Mr. Romney, which allowed him to elaborate on his graciousness and keep the story alive. He should have looked abashed. Instead he betrayed the purring pleasure of “a Christian with four aces,” in Mark Twain’s words.

Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.

But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.

Noonan is so right here, so very correct. It is deeply troubling to me as a mainstream, creedal, orthodox Christian, that it is “my team” making these mistakes. There are two things about this that are bothersome. The first is the misunderstanding of our nation, its fundamentals and how those precepts have enabled our ability to thrive religiously. The second, and more painful observation is the quotation of Mark Twain. We are looking disingenuous, perhaps even deceitful. That harms the advancement of our faith far more than anyone from any competing religion in any office, in this country, ever could.

Late addition by Lowell: Steve Finefrock of the Hollywood Conservative Forum has further thoughts on Huckabee’s religious surge.

Finally…

Jack Tapper is all excited because an Iowa city councilman called Mormonism a “cult.” You know, the real context of Huck’s ignorant utterance was a question from the NYT about whether Huckabee considers Mormonism a “religion or a cult.”

Is this the new press meme? Religion or cult? I hope not. We have been over this and over this. Technically, all religions are cults. This is digging for a smear, and it is an ignorant one at that. People of the press, if you are going to report on this stuff, at least know whereof you speak. Sheesh!

Lowell adds: Kevin McCullough, with whom we have had our respectful differences, is torn in “My MittHuck Mea Culpa.” But fair, I think.

Also, Mona Charen, who has been on the fence about Romney on religious grounds, seems to be migrating his direction in A Second Look at Romney:

The question as to whether someone’s religious convictions are a fit subject for public scrutiny is not as simple as it sounds. It’s too pat to say, “There should be no religious test for public office and there’s the end of it.” If a candidate were, say, a fundamentalist Mormon like Warren Jeffs, or a Scientologist, that would be an obstacle. But the mainstream Mormon Church has enough of a track record in producing excellent Americans that the particularities of its doctrine are by now a matter of purely scholarly interest. No one thought to raise objections to Mormonism when Mo Udall ran for president, nor even when Mitt’s father, George, made a bid. The Senate majority leader is a Mormon and this fact causes not a flicker of interest on the part of his colleagues. Besides, Mitt Romney served as governor of Massachusetts. If anyone felt Joseph Smith’s brooding presence during that time, they haven’t mentioned it.

These are not new ideas; it is the evolution of Mona’s views that is interesting. (HT: Hugh Hewitt.)

LATE HUMOR ALERT: Kathleen Parker has actually turned all this nonsense into something funny. Read the whole thing; you’ll be glad you did.

Posted in Political Strategy, Reading List, Religious Bigotry | 5 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