Article VI Blog

« Quick Links - 12/28/07 | The Problem with Huckabee, “Nifonging,” Aiding and Abetting Identity Politics, and More - December 28, 2007 »

Huckabee Sucks The Air Out Of The Religion Room, and more

Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:49 am, December 27th 2007 &mdash 4 Comments »

When it comes to religion and politics Huckabee seems to get all the play these days. That shows, first of all, the political wisdom of the inoculation effect that Romney has enjoyed by having The Question be in the air for so long now. Secondly, it demonstrates something we have contended here for a long time - everybody has been waiting to use this as a club against Evangelicals. Now that one has stuck his head up, they are coming after him hammer and tong, and at least in the case of his attacks on Romney’s faith, deservedly so.

Now, on the one hand, you have to admire [Huckabee’s] deft use of non-traditional means.

How’s He Doing It?

The Dallas Morning News looks at the network Huckabee as assembled. Now, on the one hand, you have to admire his deft use of non-traditional means. But then everybody said that about Howard Dean a few years ago, and then . . . .

And, unlike Dean, some of the means Huckabee is using are certainly outside the bounds of political traditional civility and according to USAToday perhaps even legality. From the DMN piece:

In Texas, he has the support of Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, and James Draper of Colleyville, former president of Lifeway Christian Resources. Both are former presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Of course, pastors supporting candidates is nothing new, but one must tread lightly. From the USAToday piece

In order to retain their tax-exempt status, religious groups are bound by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to tread a very definite, if fine, line: They can support or oppose political positions, but not in any explicit terms the candidates who hold them.

But it is a two-edged sword in more ways than simply the IRS. Says Thomas Sowell in a piece on the “lackluster” Republican field:

The only candidate of either party who truly looks presidential is Mitt Romney. It was unfortunate that Mike Huckabee and others have tried to make his religion an issue.

At least if you are Sowell, playing the religion card is a political loser too.

Lowell: I found the lead to the Dallas Morning News article intriguing:

Mike Huckabee’s political rise has been fueled by a vast network of local Christian leaders largely unknown to the general public but powerfully influential in evangelical circles.

That strategy – methodically rolling up the support of these grass-roots networks – has paid big dividends, helping catapult Mr. Huckabee ahead in Iowa and boosting his prospects in the Republican field.

It is interesting that no hue and cry have arisen about Huck’s unabashed use of Evangelical church channels to organize and deliver support, while the Boston Globe and many other MSM outlets seemed very exercised about even the appearance of plans by Romney’s team to do the same thing with official Mormon channels. Mind you, there was no use of such channels to help Romney, only some meetings that raised the suspicions of Boston Globe reporters, and a few ham-handed or improper e-mails that were quickly corrected. The headline to the Globe story screamed, “Romney camp consulted with Mormon leaders; Eyes nationwide network to aid White House bid.” The story’s reported facts resulted from Globe reporters actually staking out the LDS Church office building to see who entered and left. We got deeply into that story here, with related analysis here. Why was that non-story such a big deal, while what Huckabee is doing is drawing nothing but yawns from the MSM? No, I am not saying Mormons are being picked on. I’m just wondering.

Agenda Grafting . . .

One of the more interesting aspects of this whole thing has been to watch people use the fact that somebody is running for president as an excuse to bring forward their favorite thing. There were two interesting examples yesterday.

James Pinkerton is using the Huckabee campaign to argue for some pretty liberal-looking conservatism. Lowell interjecting: I love how pundits like Pinkerton, a liberal Republican from the Bush I era, describe as “centrist” Huckabee’s “willingness to spend money for better education, better health care and better roads.” Yes, that’s what the great center of the American electorate wants — more government spending!

And there appears to be theo/history-nerds on both the creedal Christian and Mormon side. This guy just can’t resist. What is amazing to me is this information has been out there, and readily accessible for a long time. Lowell again: Yes, but sadly no one’s been reading it. We seem to be doomed to a never-ending cycle of seeing the same old attacks and the same old defenses, over and over and over and . . . .

Added thoughts from Lowell: Yesterday I wrote about Ken Jennings’ wish that Romney’s campaign would end, in order “to get Mormonism out of the arena” and to stop the slander of Jennings’ faith. I posted a little more about that on The Hedgehog Blog (my other, much-neglected blog), asking, “Is Jennings saying that it’s better for people of faith to keep out of national politics if their candidacy brings out religious bigotry against their faith?”

My co-blogger there, Ralph Kostant, is an Orthodox Jew. He offered these provocative comments:

Lowell: You would be surprised at the number of Jews, Orthodox and otherwise, who were “uncomfortable” with the Vice Presidential candidacy of Joe Lieberman in 2000, not because of any political differences, but because of concern that the mass media would focus on and ridicule his Orthodox Jewish practices and beliefs. After all, he prays in a synagogue where men and women sit separately, divided by a barrier, and women cannot become Orthodox Jewish rabbis. As it turned out, he more or less got a pass on religious practices and beliefs, but to this day is harshly criticized by the media elites for his attacks on the social depravity depicted in movies, on television and in popular music. Just this past week I heard a prominent Jewish Democratic Party centrist activist and long-time U.S. Senate staffer respond to a question about whether Joe Lieberman might be a fit Vice Presidential nominee in the unlikely event that John McCain receives the GOP nomination for President. He said that the higher a monkey climbs up a tree, the more its rear end is exposed. That’s poor biology, but it certainly reflects the “Ken Jennings” outlook.

One part of the political “gospel” we preach here is that it’s important that America does not allow religious people to be driven from the public square for fear that their religious beliefs (which are a matter of conscience, after all) will be lampooned, distorted, or simply misrepresented. If we allow that to be done to the Jews or the Mormons, it will be done to everyone. That’s not the American way.

John Responds: Frankly, it is precisely Jennings thought patterns that drove much of what are considered the older “mainline” creedal Christian denominations (Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian…) into hiding and eventually liberalization. This paved the way for the rise of the often less thoughtful and certainly more militant brands of creedal Christianity that are Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism to rise to the fore politically, and particularly on the conservative side of the equation.

There are a couple of important lessons in this for Mormons. The first is that this kind of political hiding seems inevitably to lead to liberalization and secondly that leads to a declining church, for all those denominations, mine foremost among them, are dying a slow, painful death.

A Final Thoughtful Link…

David Ignatius invokes the Jefferson/Adams letters to take Romney to task over his denunciation of “Secularists” in The Speech. Indeed, many of the founders were rationalists and other forms of non-believer, but unlike today’s secularist, they welcomed the religious voice into the public square. Thomas Jefferson may not have believed in miracles, but he would not have driven mention of the Ten Commandments from the courtroom. Ignatius is setting up straw men here.

A Final Bigotry-On-Parade Link...

It has been a while since we have had reason to mention what has to date been the most anti-Mormon bigoted piece written - Jacob Weisberg and his now infamous “Founding whoppers of Mormonism.” The most notable aspect of Weisberg’s inane ramblings was that it was from the left and revealed what people on the left think about people that believe in miracles of any sort. Mormonism just gave him some sort of perceived cover to say what common courtesy would prevent him from saying about people of other faiths.

Well, Timothy Garton Ash, writing in The Guardian - the most liberal paper in all of the United Kingdom, has seen Weisberg’s bigotry and raised it several notches:

In this season of goodwill, I have been trying to think of a kinder adjective to describe “of or pertaining to the revelation of the angel Moroni”. Moronish? Moronical?

Oh, there’s a nice bridge-building start. But soon he reveals his true target:

So it really doesn’t matter what irrational belief you have as long as you have some irrational belief.

See, they are after religion in general, Mormonism if cover. He concludes with more insults:

My residual problem with Romney being a Mormon is not that Mormonism is a faith (the atheist’s problem), or that Mormonism is not unambiguously Christian (the Christian’s problem), but that it seems such a wacky collection of man-made Moronical codswallop.

Yeah, well, at least creedal Christians and Mormons know how to have a civil conversation without resorting to calling our debate opposition silly names - just things we can objectively prove, like BIGOT.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 4 Comments » | Print this post | Email This Post

Recently:

4 Responses to “Huckabee Sucks The Air Out Of The Religion Room, and more”

CarlH on 27 Dec 2007 at 8:53 am #

The David Ignatius piece is just the latest in a long line of commentary criticizing Romney’s “Faith in America” speech for failing to mention the agnostics, atheists and other secularists. This phenomenon demonstrates, in my opinion, that Romney–even as smart as he is–critically misjudged where the demand for “the Speech” was coming from and what was expected. It was mainly the chattering class, mostly from the left and secular, that was insisting on a speech–and hopefully one that attempted to summarize Mormon theology–portraying their own demands as something necessary to assuage non-Mormon religious voters and especially evangelicals. Instead they got a statesmanlike discussion of religion’s place in America. Denied the opportunity to slice and dice Romney’s summary against “what Mormons really believe,” the pundits, particularly those from the left and even the secular right, were left with only a shred to gnaw on–and are they ever doing it, and with relish. Might Romney have thrown a bone to the secularists in his speech? Sure. But the title of his address was not “Faith, and No Faith, in America” suggesting that the critics are looking for something that Romney chose not to include the speech–given at their demand, no less–that was specifically supposed to address “religion.” As some commentators sympathetic to Romney pointed out in advance, Romney was really in a no-win position in giving the demanded speech. As it turned out, Romney did a pretty masterful job–but the critics simply will not be deterred. I think most Americans, however, see the critics as carping.

From my perspective, the Huckabee campaign (and the candidate himself, for that matter) has “rescued” the chattering class from Romney’s masterstroke by providing the “raw meat” that they’ve wanted from the Romney campaign–and in a bonus almost too good to be true–put on display some of what the leftist and secularists fear most from the religious right.

As Article VI Blog has been pointing out from the beginning, religious voters are all the losers when theology replaces policy and character as the focus of a campaign.
JLFuller on 27 Dec 2007 at 11:23 am #

The Rot of Intolerance

Some folks can remember the cross being carried by men in hooded white robes carrying a rope. It was that same fiery cross they planted in front of people’s homes as a message of hate. And now, again, we see that same cross being used as a weapon against Mormons and non-believers. In this case it is a former Southern Baptist preacher who carries it. If the fear of fascism and bigotry doesn’t resonate in the hearts of men with this image it should at least resonate in their minds.

Some readers may claim that my singling out SB’s is unfair - that all they are doing is expressing genuine doctrinal differences. I ask that people who think along those lines remember how too many of that denomination used the cross in the past. Some still do. Now, consider how these same people have talked about Mormons, Unitarians, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Universalists and others. Catholics similarly have doctrinal misgivings but you don’t see Catholics demonizing them. They don’t have 200 odd hate filled anti-Mormon books and pamphlets on their website book stores. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans and Jews don’t distribute this stuff. These denominations all have doctrinal differences with Mormons and others. But you don’t see hate literature offered in prominent places in their churches and buildings. You don’t hear their leadership preaching hate and intolerance from the pulpit. They don’t have six-part anti-Mormon hit pieces in their newsletters and publications. They answer doctrinal difference questions when asked - they don’t mount campaigns against those they disagree with and they don’t turn religious events into hate and intolerance seminars.

It is that very kind of mindset that frightens us all. It is that kind of bigotry and intolerance that we all should shun and fight whenever and wherever we find it. We have to send the message that teaching children intolerance and hatred is un-American and has no place in our society. We must teach our children by example and by word that every human being deserves respect and is a child of God. That it is OK to be different. That other people can think differently than we do and worship God in their own way and we should respect and honor them for their contribution. When we let the rot of intolerance get foothold then our whole house is in jeopardy of coming down.
tj on 28 Dec 2007 at 1:25 pm #

Are you kidding?!? You should hear the anti-Mormon speeches coming from the Cornerstone Presbyterian Church, along with anti Jehovah’s Witness, and others. And then there’s the anti-Mormon literature available at Grace Lutheran Church. Oh and let’s not forget the 3 hour long Lutheran radio show whose soul purpose is to debunk the Mormons.

What’s even more interesting is my best friend is a Presbyterian, and some of my other favorite people in life happen to be my Lutheran friends.

So yes, JLFuller, Presbyterians and Lutherans distribute and preach this stuff - from the pulpit and the mic. The regular church-goers, though, are embarrassed by it. In fact, my friend told her minister that what he is doing is NOT christian, and though he tried to get her to read some of the anti trash, she wouldn’t do it unless I read it first to tell her what was truth. She no longer attends that church.

It seems when there isn’t a central body doing the official business of the church, the individual congregations can run amok.

So that’s my experience. And it’s really too bad. This is not at all what was intended almost 2000 years ago.
JLFuller on 29 Dec 2007 at 11:11 pm #

tj
I don’t doubt what you say. But I would like you know that I think these are the exceptions and not the rule. Many wonderful compassionate and dedicated Christians are working their hearts out trying to make a difference. Not all of them are hate filled or bigoted. It is OK that others think differently than we do. You have to believe most historic Christians really are our brothers and sisters. And even those who berate us do so because they think they are right. They just don’t have good guidance. They have been taught what to think and not how to think. We knew what life would be like before we came here. We knew the influences others would suffer under and we obliged ourselves to Father anyway. It is of no consequence when you consider what our Savior did. We just need to keep things in perspective.