Article VI Blog

« Slim Pickin’s | Some Orthodox Christians Get It, Some Don’t »

Friday Musings: Harvard, Muslims, Obama, and Romney

Posted by: Lowell Brown at 09:30 pm, March 27th 2008 &mdash 5 Comments »

Today I just have a few questions:

Why is it that folks on the left and in the MSM (but I repeat myself) have such a double standard for religion in the public square?

More specifically, why is it not objectionable for Harvard University to close one of its on-campus gyms to men for six hours each week so Muslim women can exercise without men present? (HT: Ronald Bailey, writing in Reason Magazine, and commenting extensively.)

Would an on-campus Evangelical group get the same consideration?

Also at Harvard, why is it OK to have the Muslim call to prayer broadcast over a loudspeaker from the steps of the university’s main library during Islamic Awareness Week? (Also from Ronald Bailey.)

That means that daily, Harvard students heard the refrain that “there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.” I don’t begrudge the Muslims that belief or practice at all, but can you imagine a Mormon Awareness Week at Harvard, during which quotations from Joseph Smith would be read over a loudspeaker?

Or, as Bailey asks:

I wonder what the protesters would have thought if some students had similarly recited the Nicene Creed during Christianity Awareness Week?

Just wondering.

I am also wondering: Why can Barack Obama undergo that huge kerfluffle over his minister’s appalling anti-American rants, and yet suffer little damage in the polls — while Romney, whose Mormon faith is unabashedly patriotic, must wear that faith like an anvil around his neck from day 1?

It just seems that some people and faiths get a pass, and others don’t.

Or am I wrong?

John comments: In every case, the Mormon one included, we are confronted with multiple issues wrapped up in a single knot, and we get varied reactions because the press and people tend to focus different single issues rather than trying to untangle the knot and deal with all the issues.

In the Harvard case we have not only the religious issue, but also the issue of their literal militancy. In this instance people are essentially conceding to blackmail. People assume that the special privileges they grant the Islamic community will prevent violence. They are wrong, but the point is they are focused on the violence, not the religion.

In the Obama case, we are confronted with racism and religion. Now, I think the verdict is still pending as to whether he is or will suffer damage from all of this. I believe it could yet be fatal to his aspirations, if not in the primary, in the general. In addition, I have been highly uncomfortable with the detailed theological analysis that Jeremiah Wright’s preaching has undergone as a part of the political discussion. Especially from some sources that I highly respect. But again, any break that Obama and his pastor are being cut is based on people focusing on the racial aspects of the situation, not the religious one - which begins to point to the problem.

In the Mormon case the knot is religion tied up with historical polygamy. As in the other two cases, people seem unable to separate issues. It is especially troubling for Mormons because they have not practiced polygamy for over 100 years, which makes it somewhat jaw dropping that people are unable to separate the issues with the expanse of time, but I think it is the lessons on Mormon polygamy from history class that underlie most of America’s “weird factor” with Mormons.

In all three of these cases, the reason people are unable to make the separation of the issues is the idea of religion defining a persons entire identity. Now, as a deeply religious person myself, I want my religion to consume my entirety, and transform it into something better, but it does not establish for me a group stereotypical identity.

Consider these two links to stories on Romney. In both cases, Mormon is treated as a defining “label” for Romney and for a larger group of people instead of an individuals chosen faith and philosophy. Now in fairness to the shot that I took at Hugh Hewitt in the link above, this is the point Hugh was trying to make. I just think that making it by picking on Wright’s specific liberation theology is too targeted, the point needs to made in a broader perspective.

In essence, religion is an individual’s choice, and they should not suffer consequences based on that choice alone, thought he right is reserved to bring those consequences if that individual behaves - either as a direct result of their faith, or a combination of that faith and their individual proclivities - in a fashion our nation deems to be unacceptable. But it is important to note the consequences are a result of behavior, NOT RELIGION.

Which brings me back to Lowell’s original concern. The Harvard and Obama situations have current behavioral consequences, and yet they are cut religious breaks. Mormons had, but no longer have, behavioral consequences, and therefore are the only group which should be accorded “the religious break” and yet they are not getting it. That is undeniably a form of bigotry.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in News Media Bias | 5 Comments » | Print this post | Email This Post

Recently:

5 Responses to “Friday Musings: Harvard, Muslims, Obama, and Romney”

4thnephite on 28 Mar 2008 at 4:33 am #

There is no reasoning with the lop-sided thinking of the left, or of the non-thinkers. Do not let others dictate your thinking and walk and run away from colleges who practice their form of racisms. Some professors have brought the crusades to a campus near you.
Sherry on 28 Mar 2008 at 12:10 pm #

I honestly don’t believe that polygamy is the real reason Mormons are seen as weird. I think it is a scape goat or perhaps a code, but I think it masks the real reason. According to Joseph Smiths own account the persecution began as soon as he told others about his remarkable vision. Why would a 14yo nobody from rural America engender such dislike among the ministers of the day? Money.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hits other ministers where it hurts the most, their pocket books. If we can assume for a moment that Joseph Smith’s story is true, then the heavens are open again and God has authorized a representative on the Earth again. Now think about the position that puts all of the creedal preachers in. When a parishioner can say “this other fellow has direct authority from God, what are your credentials?” What can a creedal preacher say to that? Now, I am not trying to offend anyone. I happen to believe that those who are not against us are for us and all of us Christians, of every stripe, need each other. But I certainly can see how Joseph Smith’s story would have threatened the ministers of the time. (Especially the non-Catholic ones.)

The Catholics are in a whole different situation, and seem regard the LDS church differently then their creedal offspring. When it comes right down to it, the authority either passed from Christ through Peter to the Pope, or it was in need of restoration. The Catholic claim to legitimacy is just as strong as the LDS one. They seem aware of that and find it unnecessary to abuse a fellow Christian faith. After all, people are either going to accept their claim of authority, or they are not.

Now lets look at 1830 for a moment. Joseph Smith now organizes a Church. Can this new church be counted on to conform to the usual standards of religious preaching? No. Instead of supporting the seminaries and other established institutions of preacher training Joseph Smith organizes his own school to teach his church leaders. Not only that, but this new church says that you don’t even need to have read the Bible to be a pastor. (Though they do recommend it.) All you need is to be a member in good standing and be called by someone in authority, LDS authority. They also preach that ministers should not be paid at all, but should hold regular jobs in addition to their duties as a minister. I can see how this is a direct threat to creedal ministers.

So where do the creedal offspring of the Catholics get their authority from? The LDS Church is a real threat to their authority in a way that the somewhat discredited Catholic one is not. Therefore, they must discredit the LDS Church in order to maintain their authority. They must maintain their authority or no one will listen to them and they will have empty churches on Sunday. Empty churches do not pay the bills for the Pastor to live, drive a car, etc. Therefore the LDS church is a direct threat to their livelihood. Of course they are going to preach terrible things about the LDS church, bring up all of the possible dirty laundry, and make up stuff into the mix. They are desperate to keep their jobs.

Therefore, they must interfere in politics. They must make sure the LDS church doesn’t gain legitimacy in the sight of the nation. They must take every opportunity to disparage the LDS church and belittle it. But this places them in an untenable position because the LDS church and its members hold the same Christian values. I was pleasantly surprised when several Christian leaders did the right thing, and endorsed Romney, rather then doing the self-serving thing and attack him for his faith. This gives me much hope for the future. I hope someday that all Christians who share the same values can someday band together to uphold those values.

However, be careful taking at face value the attacks about polygamy and the other topics the naysayers of the LDS Church dredge up. I am sure they are just acceptable cover for fear of losing their livelihood, and greed. One only needs to look to the latest antics of Mr. Huckabee to be assured. So, I would hope in the future you will not belabor the “weird, polygamist, Mormon” mantra. After all, it is, like so many things have proven to be this past year, just a cover.
K.G. on 28 Mar 2008 at 8:43 pm #

And demonizing the “other” is a great way to build group cohesion. Nothing like having a common enemy to build esprit de corp. Unfortunately, Mormonism makes an easy and defenseless target.

In my personal experience as a Mormon, I have found love and acceptance among Catholics, hostility emanating from many evangelicals. I don’t think polygamy has anything to do with it.

Perhaps people who live in areas where Mormons are rare have a vague notion of that Mormons are a strange, polygamous sect. Where Mormons are more numerous, demonization of Mormons comes across evangelical pulpits and their adherents feel a divine mandate to take us out.

My megachurch neighbors stuff our mailboxes with anti-Mormon literature and refuse to enter a Mormon church even to attend the funeral of a loved-one. Their antipathy comes from the preaching of their pastors that we are “anathema,” not because of our quaint past.

The weirdness factor would recede into historical wallpaper if churches competing for sheep would give it a rest and just compete on their own merits.

Kudos to John at this blog and the guys over at EFM. I know you’ve taken a lot of hits for even deigning to be kind and “Christian” to Mormons.
pj on 30 Mar 2008 at 8:54 pm #

I find the last two comments mindboggling.

Sherry, is it not possible that your average Protestant Christian church would be against the teachings of Joseph Smith because they sincerely believe he was a false prophet? I can tell you they do believe that! Why would they not speak out agianst what they believe to be a false religion? They don’t believe for one minute that God suspended one of the Ten Commandments and all of a sudden adultery became kosher. That is what polygamy is! Adultery! So yes, they are against it and find anyone who promoted polygamy as an incredibly false prophet.

Mormons go out and try to convert Christians! Christians go out and try to convert Mormons! All in all, they are doing the exact same thing.

When I read comments like the last two, I once again am relieved Romney lost.

I hate all the religious arguing and the feeling that Romney supporters think I am a bigot by not supporting him.

I don’t know any Mormons, I have never heard a preacher preach about the Mormon faith and I have no idea where the closest Mormon Church is. I must admit I was quite ignorant about the whole religion. That is until I heard of Mitt Romney.
I now know more than I ever wanted to know about his religion!
Romney deserved to lose based on his very liberal record and history. A politican has to earn his credibility. It can’t be bought. At least not in the Republican party.
I have the utmost respect for Mormons and their right to worship however they choose. Just don’t try to label me a bigot or someone who is afraid of your faith! Don’t get offended if I think Mr. Smith was completely and utterly false. I do think that. That doesn’t make me a hater or anti-Mormon.
Sherry on 31 Mar 2008 at 9:56 am #

I can accept that others have a different point of view from mine, and I welcome their well-reasoned arguments against my position.

I will do my best to emulate John and give my formal justification for my position that polygamy is as much a “code” as flip-flopper was during the election.

First lets assume that polygamy is the primary reason any other Christian church has a problem with the LDS one. I certainly have heard polygamy used in this all-encompassing rebuttal way from more than one Christian source, so let’s take this position as valid for a moment. The obvious refutation of this assumption is what actually occurred. So we are all on the same page I will use the account from Wikipedia under polygamy:

“The church’s fourth president, Wilford Woodruff, issued a public declaration (commonly called the Manifesto) announcing the official discontinuance of the practice in 1890….Sixth church president Joseph F. Smith issued the church’s Second Manifesto against polygamy in 1904 which clarified that all members of the LDS Church were officially prohibited from performing or entering into polygamous marriages, no matter what the legal status of such unions was in their respective countries of residence….In 1909 a committee of apostles met to investigate post-Manifesto polygamy, and by 1910 the church had a new policy. Those involved in plural marriages after 1904 were excommunicated; and those married between 1890 and 1904 were not to have church callings where other members would have to sustain them….The LDS Church now excommunicates members found to be practicing polygamy.”

The entire article is instructive, though I spotted a couple of possible errors.

From the LDS Church’s website (LDS.org) under the topic of polygamy there is this:

“More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley has reiterated that plural marriage is “against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows [the practice of a man having more than one wife], the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.” (There is more of interest at this website also.)

So we find that the practice is denounced by currant leadership of the LDS Church, and has been since 1904. There is no one currently living who engaged in such a practice with the consent of the LDS Church. Even the children of the last, apparently disfellowshiped, polygamist marriages are at least in their 50’s, though the likelihood of childbearing years argues for them to be much older. And if these children were raised LDS, were raised in a church that condemned polygamy outright. No new polygamist marriages have been sanctioned by the LDS Church for over 100 years.

Therefore, if polygamy was, or is, the problem issue other Christian Churches have with the LDS faith then there should have been a collective sigh of relief in 1904, followed by an acceptance that now the LDS Church was just another Christian denomination.

This did not occur, therefore polygamy was not the root reason for the animosity. Therefore polygamy is just a code.

As for the “false prophet” idea, I subscribe to the thought that folks are either born into a denomination, and therefore feel most comfortable in that denomination, or they search for the denomination they do feel comfortable in. Therefore, they will follow the man who seems to them to be most right. In the history of Christianity there have been two popes, a great schism, reformers like Martin Luther, and protesters like John Calvin. My understanding is that today all a man needs to be considered a legitimate preacher is a “call from God” and a seminary degree, and I have heard of cases in which the second was not even required by the congregation. I do not see the difference between this process and what Joseph Smith claimed, except for the points I have already made.

It is interesting to me to note that the Islamic faith has many of the same “problems” the LDS faith is charged with. I wonder if we would see the same animosity leveled toward an Islamic candidate for president that we saw leveled against Mitt Romney. I think the gaffes we have seen with Obama indicate it would be. This is sad in a society that claims to believe in freedom of religion, and no religious test for the presidency. If it came to that I hope I would still choose a candidate based on how good I believed they would be for America, and not their religion.

(To clarify, I saw endorsing Romney as the “right” choice because he has the economic experience to deal with a failing economy, something George Bush is about to hand the next president on a platter. The “r” word, recession, has entered into all corners of news and the “d” word is making inroads. Bernake is confident that he can avoid another great depression, and that worries me most of all. I am having visions of the unsinkable ship Titanic. I am seriously concerned about McCain’s complete lack of knowledge, and I have no love for bigger government so I won’t vote for a democrat. Just my position, someone else is guaranteed to feel differently. But I realized after I sent the above message that I hadn’t made it clear why I believe Romney was the right choice.)