We reported on Monday about the anti-Mitt for Veep effort. Well, one of the organizers of that effort took to the internet to attack, quite directly, Mormons. (Thanks to many readers that have pointed us to this.) He starts with the old “some of my best friends are Mormons” shtick then says:

This background is furnished to establish the degree of shock I experienced from the hatred directed toward me by the Mormon community as a result of the NO MITT advertisement our PAC placed in an Arizona newspaper stating the reasons we believe Mitt Romney is unfit to be picked by Senator John McCain as his running mate. Our ad simply pointed out that Mitt Romney, for convenience or other reasons, has changed his position on central issues such as abortion. The ad never mentioned his association with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and this was not an issue to our PAC or the signers of the full page ad.

Methinks he doth protest too much, but then, this thing as gotten so psychologically twisted that it is quite feasible that these people no longer admit even to themselves that religion plays a role. In the first place, in his preamble, none of what he cites is a presidential contest and we long ago have seen that the game gets VERY different in a presidential race. Secondly, we have demonstrated over and over on this blog that the “flip-flop” charge, particularly when combined with claims of deceit, is code for “Mormon.” We even have a Huckabee campaign staffer on record as overtly admitting (note to self: we still need to publish that interview) that code, and the Joel Belz’ World Magazine piece which attempts to establish a connection between Mormon thought an a predilection to deceit.  (Speaking of World - despite their role, via the Belz piece, of creating cover for a lot of the religious dust up in the Republican campaign - they now seem to sound downright reasonable.  Of course, much hinges on how the Evangelical unity they seem to want would form.)

Then there is the extraordinary nature of this opposition when Romney is one of numerous people being considered by McCain, with no evidence from McCain that Romney has a better chance than anyone else, though Romney seems more active than most in seeking the slot. As we demonstrated on Monday this is an opposition born of something other than political sensibility. There is little I know of that can account for this level of animus that something akin to religious levels of devotion.

Now, having said that, William Murray also says this:

Our NO MITT petition site on the Internet gave those who signed the petition an opportunity to give a short personal message to Senator McCain as to why they did not want Mitt Romney as Vice President. Individuals used this opportunity to post hateful and bigoted anti-evangelical messages at the site that I cannot reprint here. At one point a volunteer had to work full time to cull out those messages that were too offensive to leave up. We blocked the server at BYU in Utah and the number of offensive messages declined. In the culling process some messages that were not offensive were removed as well, our volunteers did the best they could with the volume.

Shame on any Mormon (perhaps I am overstepping my bounds here, but I think I have earned it) that has engaged in such activity. You help yourselves not at all by such actions. You undermine the efforts of reasonable people to solve this problem with such efforts.

Lowell: I agree that if any Mormons did post “hateful and bigoted anti-evangelical messages,” they should be ashamed.

But I’m from Missouri on this one. I’d like to see some evidence. So far in this religio-political presidential campaign cycle the evidence we have seen does not support such bile coming from the Mormon side of the question. In my mind there is a lot of reason to doubt William Murray’s version of events.

At least some Evangelicals have the common sense to back away from this mess, although they should have had the sense to not get into it to begin with.

Some Interesting Stuff To Read…

You just have to love a book review that starts this way:

The naked public square has been hung with paraments, and those who preferred it unadorned have not quite known what to make of it. Even before controversy erupted over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s jeremiads, 2008’s presidential candidates had kicked up the level of God-talk notches previously unknown. For the most part, secular commentators in the press and academy have shown themselves to be well out of their depth even when addressing their own religious traditions, and the political naivete displayed by religious commentators has only reinforced Burke’s famous dictum that “politics and the pulpit are terms that have little agreement.”

The review is of a book that looks at citations of scripture in political speech. Sounds very interesting.

An on-line magazine devotes an issue to the question: “Is there a religious test in politics?” I have not had time to get through all of this, and I find it fascinating that it comes out pf the Jeremiah Wright controversy, not the Romney controversy, but what I have seen of it, particularly the historical background stuff, is worthy information.

Politics…

Hmmmm…. While I tend to agree with the thesis, I find the stridency a bit off-putting. (HT: Evangelical Ecologist)

Pure Politics…

Barone does the numbers as only Barone can. Romney was not beaten as badly as perhaps you think.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Legality, Religiousity, Post-Prop 8 Ugliness and the Case Against Huckabee
• Prop 8 and religion: A moral or political issue, or both?
• RED MEAT! Hewitt, Huckabee and Anti-Mormonism
• Say What?!
• In The Wake Of Prop 8
• A Catholic Defense of Mormon Support (and other religions’ support) for Prop 8
• Being The Target
• Encouraging?
• Proposition 8: Multi-Faith Press Conference Speaks Out Against Attacks
• And Now…Terrorism!?