It’s still vacation time for Article VI Blog, but we will offer a few thoughts about the possibility (which some consider quite likely) that John McCain will select Governor Romney as his running mate.

If Romney were still in the race as an active presidential candidate, what impact would the Texas controversies over the polygamous FLDS movement had?  A poll conducted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”) revealed some interesting possibilities:

• More than a third of those surveyed (36 percent) erroneously thought that the Texas compound was part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or “Mormon Church” based in Salt Lake City
• 6 percent said the two groups were partly related.
• 29 percent correctly said the two groups were not connected at all
• 29 percent were not sure.

In addition, when asked specifically which religious organization members of the polygamous group belonged to:

• 30 percent said “Mormon,” “LDS” or “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”
• 14 percent said “FLDS”
• 6 percent said “Mormon fundamentalists”
• Nearly  half (44 percent) were unsure

As John might say, had Romney still been in the race, it would have gotten ugly.

Now ask yourself:  In the general election, what would Democrats do with this opportunity to obfuscate and smear?  That might be uglier still.  Would they do those things even against Romney as a vice presidential nominee?

On the brighter side, it appears unlikely that the MSM would be willing particiapants in such confusion-mongering.  Elder Lance Wickman, one of the Church’s general authorities and an attorney who is the Church’s General Counsel, issued a letter to the news media that included these significant paragraphs:

1. As reflected in the AP Style Guide, we ask that you and your organization refrain from referring to members of that polygamous sect as “fundamentalist Mormons” or “fundamentalist” members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
2. We ask that, when reporting about this Texas-based polygamous sect or any other polygamous group, you avoid either explicitly or implicitly any inference that these groups are affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
3. On those occasions when it may be necessary in your reporting to refer to the historical practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that you make very clear that the Church does not condone the practice of polygamy and that it has been forbidden in the Church for over one hundred years.  Moreover, we absolutely condemn arranged or forced “marriages” of underage girls to anyone under any circumstances.   

Stated simply, we would like to be known and recognized for who we are and what we believe, and not be inaccurately associated with beliefs and practices that we condemn in the strongest terms. We would be grateful if you could circulate or copy this letter to your editorial staff and to your legal counsel.

It is significant, I think, that the letter came from legal counsel and not simply from the Church’s Public Affairs department, which has been issuing similar requests for years.  Also notable is the request that the letter be distributed not just to the media’s editorial staff, but also to their legal counsel.  The Church does not threaten legal action often, and the tone of Elder Wickman’s letter could not be kinder or more respectful; but the implicit threat of legal action seems quite remarkable to me.

Sadly, my crystal ball is still not working as well as I would like it to.  But I am sure that somewhere within Team McCain, these issues are being discussed.  My guess is that in the end, the decision will be made on other grounds, and that if Romney is McCain’s choice, any new media organization that actually uses editors will do its best to avoid smearing Romney by association with the FLDS or any other such organization.

Time will tell.  That’s the great thing about political prognosticating - eventually, we find out who was right and who was wrong.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

John is on a cruise, and I am headed out on vacation myself within the next hour.  So for today’s post I’ve chosen one of John’s finest and most important past efforts.  As I read this this morning, I ask myself:  Has John’s message been accepted yet?

_________________________________________

A Letter To Some of My Fellow Evangelicals

Posted by John Schroeder on April 17th, 2007      

In talking to my evangelical friends, both personally and in some emails I receive about this blog, there are some themes or statements that come up again and again. I thought I would address a few of them.

How can I, in good conscience, vote for someone whose beliefs are very different than mine?

Why would your conscience be troubled? You are voting for someone to do the job of president, not pastor. You are voting for the individual, not his beliefs. Can he do the job? Will he do the job in a way that aligns with my principles and values? Those are the questions that matter. When hiring someone for my business, those are the question I ask. Of course, I would prefer someone that believes as I do, but often I find candidates much better qualified for the job with other, or more frequently simply without, beliefs. I frankly would be foolish to hire a lesser qualified candidate to operate a soil sampling drill rig simply because the best candidate was a Jehovah’s Witness instead of a Presbyterian.

People’s beliefs really matter in their lives, and Mormons believe so differently.

Indeed Mormon belief is quite different, but how precisely does that matter? It is my opinion that Mormon belief is grossly misunderstood. It is not orthodox by any stretch of the imagination, but it is not so far off as the common perception might suggest. Consider the Godhead, to use the LDS term. Mormons are decidedly non-Trinitarian, fair enough. But does that make a difference in how a Mormon would govern? I don’t think so. Are our values based on our Trinitarian views? - No. Our values are largely based on the Judaic law, which is in turn based on monotheism, but not Trinitarianism. Some try to paint Mormons as polytheists, and the strictest possible interpretation of their theology of the godhead would indicate they are, but I have read enough Mormon theologians to know they do not carry their views of the godhead that far. Ask any Mormon if they are polytheistic and they will deny it vociferously. At best we can accuse them of having lousy logic in their theological formulations, but in practice and life they are little different than us. Please remember they hold the same scripture we do, plus “The Lord your God is ONE God” is scripture for Mormons just as much as it is for us. The additional scripture of Mormonism does not to the best of my knowledge contradict a word of the Bible - they interpret it very differently, but that is not a critical matter in this instance.

So, my question to you - specifically what is it that Mormons believe, as cited by Mormons, not anti-Mormon activists, that will affect how they govern? My researches of the last year and 100 years of Utah history says that they govern just like we do.

If you are still concerned, consider:

How do you feel when atheists say you should not vote for X because he is a Christian? This is America; our freedom to practice our faith is highly dependent on the freedom to have religious diversity in all areas of society, including government. If we, even in the privacy of the voting booth, exclude someone of another faith, then we are giving permission to allow others to exclude us. And we are increasingly in the minority in this nation . . . .

Technorati Tags: Mormons, belief, difference, Evangelicals, Mitt Romney

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

It was Iowa — better said, a lot of Iowa Republican primary voters — who propelled Mike Huckabee into prominence and punctured the tire on Mitt Romney’s campaign bus.  The latest news about the Iowa GOP is that they’ve denied their senior senator, Charles Grassley, a voting seat among its delegation the to the Republican National Convention.

Is there any earthly reason to allow such a demographic to have such tremendous influence over who the Republican presidential nominee is?

In the encouraging news department, a Google News search for “Mitt Romney” with the words “vice president” and “Mormon” produced nothing notable. That’s good, even if it leaves us with little to write about. Believe me, John and I would be happy if this blog became unnecessary.

Meanwhile, veep speculation runs rampant. We’re biased, of course, but it sure does seem to be trending Romney’s way. That’s what the L.A. Times Opinion LA blog thinks, as well as NPR’s Ron Elving:

[R]ight now pressure is building again for McCain to set aside his personal distaste for Romney and put him on the ticket. The campaign has put out the story that the obvious animosity between the two men in the primaries has been set aside. No one will ever sense true chemistry in this relationship, but it’s possible McCain could make the same judgement call that Sen. Bob Dole made in 1996.

Dole had endured considerable abuse from former Rep. Jack Kemp of New York when they both served in Congress, and it was clear that the Kansan had little use for the former pro quarterback. But if Kemp could help win the White House, Dole was willing to make the personal sacrifice and put him on the ticket.

It was a sign of some desperation on Dole’s part, and in the end it did not get him elected. But Romney is a more mature and serious politician than Kemp ever was, and he may be a better antidote to McCain’s specific problems than Kemp was for Dole’s.

With his most recent moves, Romney has shown he is willing to forget past wounds and make sacrifices of a material kind that few can dream of making. He has done what he can do.

Will McCain feel the need to do as much?

We’ll see. And the gang at MSNBC says McCain might announce his VP pick while Obama’s overseas. That would be interesting.

And on that note, we wish you a fine day!
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Now, about that Evangelical defection to Obama . . .

Mollie at GetReligion details and dissects “a new Pew study that indicates that Obama is getting slightly fewer — that’s right — fewer white evangelical supporters than John Kerry was at the same time four years ago.”

Wait a minute. I thought the whole center-right coalition was falling apart, led by the defection of Evangelicial Christians? I thought efforts like Obama’s faith-based initiative outreach to Evangelicals were changing the dynamic of the race?

Then again, maybe not. Mark Hemingway at NRO thinks the story line “is a classic example of the media trying to force a campaign narrative, regardless of whether it is true.” Golly, where have we seen that before?

More on this here and here. And Blake Dvorak’s analysis is more compelling than anything you’ll probably see in the Washington Post or New York Times.

The Climb-Down Begins

Looks like James Dobson is having second thoughts:

“I never thought I would hear myself saying this,” Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. “… While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might.”

Dobson should think about avoiding sweeping predictions about the future, as in his statement that he’d never vote for McCain, or “I don’t believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon, but that remains to be seen, I guess.”

VeepWatch note

David Broder says what many (including me) are wondering:

McCain relies on his instincts for the big decisions, and I can’t tell whether he has really abandoned his initial thumbs-down judgment about Romney. He clearly needs help from someone to compete with Obama on the economy. Greenspan and Buffett aren’t going to do it for him.

Yup.
Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

First, watch this JibJab cartoon, if you haven’t already. If you’re like me, you’ll laugh out loud and find your mood unexpectedly improved.

Now: Pickings are a little slim these days, it being the dog days of summer and all. (I’m in Washington today, and “dog days” certainly describes the weather.) But there is still a little going on:

Jonathan Martin reports, in one of those anecdotal pieces we dislike so much, that “the reason McCain is garnering less enthusiasm than President Bush [is that] talking about his personal faith is not something he’s comfortable with.”

(Emphasis added.) A plague on all their houses. First, on Martin’s house: His story is based on another story, which is in turn based on yet another set of “person in the street” interviews. Note to journalists: Those anecdotal interviews tell us nothing. Nada. Zilch. They reflect your laziness. They do make good reads, however.

Second, consider this “person in the street” view, as reported by Martin:

SIOUX CENTER, Iowa (AP) — Stirring her morning coffee, lifelong Republican Grace Droog voiced her doubts — and those of many evangelical voters — about what she isn’t hearing from John McCain in this year’s presidential election.

“I look for something about his faith,” she said. “It’s very important, it’s what our nation was founded on.”

Her pal Joan Rens nodded; she, too, wants McCain to talk about his religious beliefs. “I wish he would so we would know how he stands on his religious views and where his faith lies,” she said.

This makes me want to scream. Are you as tired of this approach to voting as I am? Is that all it takes — a candidate must talk about his religious beliefs a lot, even if it’s the social justice religio-babble of an Obama? Please.

(I was just kidding about the plague, by the way.)

And . . . why, pray tell, is Iowa supposed to be such a bellweather for voter sentiment?

For a more forward-looking approach, here’s an interesting e-mailer to K-Lo at NRO:

Evangelicals are going through a massive political identity crisis right now and should not, absolutely should not, be courted according to some outdated pre-2004 model. We are too disjointed right now for our collective views to be a determining factor, especially as doing so would alienate other voting groups.

Read the whole thing, and enjoy your weekend!
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

William McKenzie of the Dallas Morning News suggests Pentecostals might be an important demographic group this fall — particularly Hispanic Evangelicals, a very interesting conservative-religious segment:

What does all this mean for the fall election?

John McCain has the edge among Pentecostals, but this is not a done deal.

Mr. McCain’s strategists would be smart to emphasize to Pentecostals his belief in conservative social values and his dedication to finding a better set of immigration laws. The values part would reassure Pentecostals that he won’t unravel the social order. And his devotion to fairer immigration laws will show he’s not one of those Republicans who is out to demonize immigrants, some of whom worship in Pentecostal iglesias in cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and Chicago.

As far as Barack Obama goes, he could play to the younger Pentecostals who have an interest in a fairer economy. And there are black Pentecostals he could win over in large cities.

Read the whole thing.

Elsewhere, this Religion News Service writer wonders if Evangelicals will turn to Barack Obama, who’d love to see them do that.  The article is not persuasive or even informative, because it’s simply a collection of “man/woman in the street” interviews.  Besides, I see no reason why Evangelicals won’t vote their political beliefs first.  Those who tend to have conservative political views will overwhelmingly vote for McCain; those who are more liberal (a minority within Evangelicalism, I believe) will vote for Obama.

Sigh. Simplistic stories about religious voters seem to be favorites f0r lazy reporters.

Finally,  on the political side of the fence, John, e-mailing from Rome, notes this story about a Romney becoming McCain’s Michigan campaign chair.  It’s Scott, Mitt’s brother.  Hmmm . . . .
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »