Be Vewy, Vewy Quiet, We’re Hunting News…
Ah, Blessed Silence…
While there is always discussion of religion and politics, there is very little talk of it related directly to this campaign right now. This is probably attributable to several reason. For one thing the confused nature of the Republican race means there is no way to craft a narrative. This is especially true in light Romney taking a majority of the Evangelical vote in Michigan. Evangelicals are not beating on the Mormon anymore and the press cannot subsequently beat on the Evangelicals. Smart move by those Michiganders.
Secondly, the issue has, I think, been delegitimized. The punditry has played an important role in all this. But frankly, I think the pure identity nature of Huckabee’s campaign, his very ham-fisted personal handling of the issue, and the very ugly nature of many of his supporters’ attacks, have by example left a very poor taste in the mouth of most voters. Which also means talking about it is not going to sell newspapers, or generate hits.
But there is some news…
Seems some SC robocallng can land pretty closely to Huckabee’s doorstep. This was push-polling, but not the anti-Mormon type. It does make one smell a rat though.
The Oregon pollster that is as far back as the New Hampshire anti-Mormon push polling scandal has reached, is pushing back at the prosecutors. If I was this guy, I would quietly go behind the woodshed, make a deal for farther up the food chain, and take whatever whuppin’ was necessary.
And now Ron Paul is reaching out to pastors. It’s not working for Huck anymore, so why bother? McCain’s trying to sound vaguely religious too. People really need to stick to their strengths.
Trying To Keep The Question Alive…
For whatever reason, the AP thinks that because Romney won in MI, The Question is going to kick up instead of quiet down. They did yet another Mormon profile piece and then a blurb on the basic tenets of Mormonism. The first is old and tired and I’ll bet even money Lowell is going to tell us, that what the AP thinks are “key tenets,” most Mormons do not.
Lowell: It never fails. The beliefs the MSM find fascinating are the ones that come up in Sunday School oh, about once a decade. I especially liked the notion that people suspect Mormons of being “secretive, exclusive, elitist and racist.” Wow. In can see secretive and racist (although both are debatable), but exclusive and elitist? How could that be, when they let people like me join? 
The REAL Question When It Comes to Religion and Politics
Senator Jim DeMint (who has endorsed Romney) and Professor J. David Woodward in First Things.
Few issues are as important today as the protection of the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the practice of religion. These rights are the most treasured benefits of living in a free and democratic nation, and they are more than a help; they are foundational principles that promote and protect a healthy democracy. Today these fundamental freedoms are everywhere under attack, and the positive influences and societal protections they afford have been routinely ignored by new elites allied to government power and anxious to advance a new agenda.
Although, in some ways, it will never end…
Posted in Reading List | 4 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
JLFuller on 17 Jan 2008 at 2:48 pm #
The AP ‘s piece says
I understand why some people who do not follow religious discussions continue to cite the simple stuff – fog index and all. But the AP’s editors must not have given it must thought. The real discussion ought to be about the underpinnings of LDS theology and not the subordinate issues. That is, did God re-open the scriptural canon and what is the true nature of God? The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith things are of no consequence and disproved by default if there is no foundation for a re-opened canon and refuted Trinitartianism. That would be big news. Or so it seems to me. But then again I am a religion nerdnick.
CarlH on 17 Jan 2008 at 4:20 pm #
Amidst the calm, count on CNN to try keeping “The Question” buzz alive with yet another rehash of Mormons’ reactions to the Romney candidacy–at least they provide evidence that the LDS faithful aren’t all in lock-step, which might actually come as a surprise to a lot of people, including a lot of people who work at CNN. The accompanying sidebar on “key tenets of Mormon faith” completely (and typically) misses somethings that truly are key, while including (at the top of the list no less) a lot of interesting side-lights.
coltakashi on 17 Jan 2008 at 6:05 pm #
With regard to the First Things article about the intimidation by the ACLU of colleges, school boards and local governments:
I can understand the intimidation felt by a school board or town council when the ACLU shows up and threatens to bankrupt the government entity with a lawsuit.
Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that any government council that is really interested in standing up for principles would not be able to find an attorney or law firm that would be willing to prepare their defense as a pro bono matter, simply as a matter of civic duty and also to enhance their reputation, and thus income, in the community. A high profile case with a lot of news coverage becomes a showcase for a local attorney, who is willing to help his local school or city as a form of advertising his services to those who can pay. Once when I was offering my services to Riverside, California, on a matter where I had unique expertise, a local law firm volunteered to do all the work for free in order to cement its relationship to the City on the issues for which it got paid. (They then idiotically filed a lawsuit against the Air Force which was, from the first, destined to lose.)
Indeed, most local government entities have to hire legal counsel in the normal course of events, in order to pass ordinances, and borrow money for construction of government buildings and schools. Often the local prosecutor is a part-time attorney who routinely handles other civil matters, and would not a have a conflict of interest in defending his client in a civil suit. The lawyers who routinely work for the government unit have a motive to do some free work once in a while to build good will, not to mention lay the foundation for political office in local government, the state legislature, or as a judge.
Frankly, I think it is more likely that in most cases, the board or council receiving the notice of suit from the ACLU does not even bother consulting legal counsel about their chances of a successful defense, and the possibility of having most of it done pro bono. They are so penny wise and pound foolish that they are afraid of being charged for the hour of advice on whether to defend themselves or not.
Does my belief in the inherent litigation cowardice of local governments sound unduly pessimistic? I mean it to be realistic. Time and again I have seen clients confronted by government enforcement agencies over alleged violations of environmental laws, who fall all over themselves to sign on to admissions of guilt and compliance orders, without ever considering the possibility that the regulatory agency might be wrong in its understanding of the facts and its interpretation of the law, and that they should at least pay an outside attorney to advise them on the crucial question of whether to defend themselves or not. Indeed, preparing for the contingency of litigation is often the best way to win a negotiation, and avoid the cost of litigation altogether.
My guess is that, if you sit down with the school boards and colleges and local governments that cave in to the ACLU, many of them will tell you that they never seriously counseled with an attorney about how they could go about defending themselves. So my sympathy for them is limited. Indeed, by surrendering with so little effort, they encourage the ACLU to go on to the next victim, and they betray their fiduciary duty to their constituents. They can always blame the ACLU for caving in, while they tell the voters that it couldn’t be helped, and they are saved the bother of giving depositions and having to really think about the issues in dispute.
The way to deter ACLU abuses is to take them on, case by case. Their attorneys have to be paid, and have limited time and infinite demands on their time. So many of their threats to sue are largely bluffs. And a clever attorney for a defendant may be able to find a way to sue the ACLU back and get the ACLU to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees.
When the interest being defended is one shared by many other entities, there may be associations that can help defray the litigation defense costs in order to have one big suit instead of lots of big suits!
The motto of most petty officials is “Just get it over with so we can get on to the things I am interested in.” In my experience as defense counsel for a Federal agency, I learned that the fastest way to lose a case was to allow an agency official to control the negotiations with the plaintiff/prosecutor. His interest is in making the case go away, no matter what it costs his agency in the short and long term. He gets brownie points from his clueless superiors for “resolving” the controversy, even though he is often just postponing it. He is often not going to be around when the s— that he has launched boomerangs back and hits his successors.
The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, etc. demonstrate that there are attorneys who feel deeply about protecting traditional virtues, and would be willing to invest part of their energies into doing so in negotiation and litigation. I think most of the lack of active legal defense is due to local officials who are too ignorant, lazy or unprincipled to even consider defending their institutions from the costs, financial and moral, of surrendering to tyrannical litigation.
Sherry on 18 Jan 2008 at 3:57 am #
Actually I thought “the basic tenets of Mormonism” release by the AP did an unusually good job. It is hard to sum up the “Nature of God” in one line, and certainly this doesn’t convey much of what we believe. In addition the bit on the second coming of Christ was unrecognizable from the actual doctrine. But I’m willing to give them credit for the other points. Besides, I think it is great to have any exposure that isn’t centered on what I think of as ancient history in the church. (I was born in the 70′s.)
As for the push-polling thing, can a group really be a “501(c)(4)” if they are actively seeking to elect a particular candidate? I was just wondering because I found this site: http://cannottrustromney.com/ that has right at the top “Trust Huckabee,” has lots of Huckabee links, and at the bottom says that it is paid for by these “common sense issues” folks. I am wondering how they can consider their polling to be within the “IRS regs [that] prohibit ‘direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office?’” (from: http://reason.com/blog/show/124432.html) Is this really within the scope of the 501(c)(4) status?