A Trigger Pulled…
It is quite difficult to know how to lead off this post. While one political-religious story clearly dominated the weekend news, a small bit of political gossip dominated the attention of your humble bloggers. However, the two bits present an interesting contrast, which makes for an extraordinary comparison. Let’s start with the gossip. Said Robert Novak in a small bit in a multi-bit piece on Saturday:
Political donors report Sen. John McCain complains he is under pressure from President Bush and his former political adviser Karl Rove to select former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his vice presidential running mate.
Since losing to McCain in the Republican primaries, Romney has become a strong supporter and helper of the presumptive nominee. During their contest, McCain indicated his dislike for Romney.
Many economic conservatives view Romney as the best bet for a unified GOP ticket. Social conservatives are less enthusiastic about him, and many evangelicals still oppose Romney because of his Mormon religion.
This is the first bit of serious comment on the Veepstakes that I have seen that raised The Question. Frankly, that topic has been a bit of a fetish with Novak since before there was a genuine campaign. I think this has to be because Novak has a disdain for Evangelicals. He is smart enough to know that they are more or less out of the picture this cycle. McCain has no interest in rebuilding the traditional Republican conservative coalition. He does not think he needs Evangelicals this cycle. This comment by Novak seems designed to rub salt in Evangelical wounds.
Nonetheless, this supplies an interesting contrast to the big political news item of the weekend:
Obama Seriously Changes Things . . .
On the surface, this is a simple story – associates of the presumptive Democrat nominee for the presidency have made any number of politically controversial statements forcing the candidate to disassociate himself from them. Hugh Hewitt places that story in the context of known Obama associates outside the church. Powerline’s Scott Johnson uses it to point out Obama’s obvious flaws as well as the MSM’s.
From the perspective of this blog, the issue that rises almost in neon is the line between religious and political speech in a church/pulpit and the consequences to both the church and politics.
If I am a conservative Evangelical pastor I am going to be experiencing a bit of a “chilling effect” in the wake of this. This clearly paints a huge target on any pulpit that engages in political rhetoric of any sort. Pulpits associated with candidates are now fair game in the great political battles of our nation. They always have been to some extent, but never on this level. Candidates have been vetted and found wanting out of religious tribalism (think Al Smith or Mitt Romney) but never based on straightforward vetting of the speech coming from the pulpit. (Think about how little effect that the vetting of Hagee has had on McCain – although McCain is certainly NOT one of Hagee’s parishioners.)
The statements by Wright and Pfleger in the Trinity Church pulpit have delegitimized that church to the point that the candidate has been forced to resign. What happens when, for example, abortion becomes so accepted in this nation that decrying it from the pulpit will gain the same kinds of responses? Yes, the MSM has been trying this for some time now, but the public acceptance of abortion continues to grow, and much as the racial concerns of four decades ago are now overwrought and just plain ugly, the same could happen to the abortion issue. Those efforts could someday be as effective as these. At that point, a candidate can no longer be seen to associate with conservative Evangelical pastors that are this forthright either. It is a scary thought.
It should be noted that the black church in this nation, as lead by Dr. Martin Luther King, was one of the greatest forces for good and righteousness, even God’s righteousness, that this nation has ever seen. To see it reduced and embarrassed in this manner is shameful and saddening – but also frightening because of what it portends for other churches that would presume to take on such a role as related to other issues.
What we have seen in this cycle is two branches of American faith get themselves into politics in a fashion that has nullified their effectiveness. On the right hand we have seen conservative Evangelicals place themselves on the bench this cycle by thinking tribally. On the left we have seen the formerly powerful and effective political force of the black church reduced to caricature and not only benched, but likely removed from the political scene altogether.
The black church may be forever scarred as a political force because its banner-carrier has been forced to divorce himself from it. The conservative Evangelical movement has a chance to get back in the game because the opposition simply won this round; it has not yet been hoist on its own petard – but this cycle has shown that possibility to be quite real and quite terrifying.
To date, the Mormons seem to be the ones that have best learned the lessons we are seeing in these events. They engaged in overbearing political speech in their early days and suffered grievously for it. They are in fact still paying the price for that over a century later. This fact is more testament to the long memories, but short understanding, of more mainstream religion in the country than to anything the Mormons have done. Which is the point, I think.
I hope conservative Evangelicals heed the lessons of these events. It is their last, best hope.
Lowell adds a bit of Mormon perspective:
First, the irony: It is entirely foreign to the church experience of any living Mormon to hear over the pulpit anything like the statements Hagee, Wright, or Pfleger have made. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just doesn’t do that. I’m not making a value judgment, just a statement of fact that is widely known.
Undoubtedly the reason for the Church’s approach is that it was burned, long ago, for getting tangled up in politics. Now the Church maintains a policy of impressively strict political neutrality. The only time the Church speaks publicly in the political arena is when a moral issue is involved. Even under that standard, speaking out is rare. I can think if only a few examples: The Church has come out against gambling, both in the form of lotteries and parimutuel (horse race) betting; liquor by the drink in Utah; and same-sex marriage. That’s it. No comments on elections, no endorsements of candidates, not even any political activities in Church buildings. The Church just stays out of politics.
If a Mormon leader — say, a bishop in an LDS congregation, or “ward,” had made statements remotely similar to those Hagee, Wright or Pfleger have made, he would have been told to stop – at a minimum. An egregious case, or a refusal to stop, would simply result in the leader being removed from his position. And you can take that to the bank.
So it is deeply ironic that the candidate who suffered the most, in this election cycle, for his religious affiliation belongs to the church with the most hands-off attitude of all the faiths who are represented among the candidates.
(Of course, I am not claiming that the Mormon Church is the only one with such an attitude. Surely there are thousands of others all over the country. It looks like Scott Ott’s church is one of them.)
Second, the playing field has been far from level for Mitt Romney. Remember when, in October 2006, the Boston Globe went bonkers over a supposed “nationwide network” of Mormons who were going to support Romney? The story’s lede was pretty breathless:
Governor Mitt Romney’s political team has quietly consulted with leaders of the Mormon Church to map out plans for a nationwide network of Mormon supporters to help Romney capture the presidency in 2008, according to interviews and written materials reflecting plans for the initiative.
Of course, over time it became clear that there was nothing to this story. Zero. Zilch. Nada. But it pretty much set the tone for the way Romney had to talk about his faith: He had to walk on eggshells, all the time.
Contrast the MSM treatment of baseless charges about a “network” of Romney’s co-religionists with the way the MSM has ignored Obama’s 20-year history in Trinity United. If it were not for the blogosphere and talk radio, hardly anyone would know about Jeremiah Wright. And yet stories about Romney often included stange-sounding quotes from speeches by Mormon leaders in the 1800’s, and reports on Romney’s great–great grandfather’s practice of polygamy.
Note: I am not complaining or whining about unfair treatment of Mormons in the news media, just pointing out the selective manner in which the MSM (and others) have examined religious issues in this election.
Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
HaroldHutchison on 02 Jun 2008 at 1:54 pm #
I have only remembered one time in Virginia where a position on a political race was staked out – and an endorsement was made over the pulpit as a Mormon in the DC area. It was when Virginia was holding a referendum on establishing a lottery. I distinctly recall that the bishop urged those attending to vote against the referendum.
That was it. I don’t recall hearing same-sex marriage over the pulpit where I lived.
kermit on 07 Jun 2008 at 6:53 am #
It is also noteworthy that at the beginning of every political election cycle, the church leadership stands at the pulpit and reads a letter from the leaders in Salt Lake advising people to get involved and vote, but that no political activity will take place at church buildings, from the pulpit, etc, and that the church remains neutral on who to vote for. I bet you don’t hear comments like that from other pulpits. And then, when I walk out of my LDS church building, I find flyers all over my car from local community evangelical churches telling me “who to vote for.” Just sayin’ . . .