My, My . . .

Bishop Charles Chaput points out that for Catholics, at least, issues matter above party loyalty. To which I respond, “Indeed! But party loyalty creates effectiveness on the issue - abortion. Is there really another option?”

A leading Godblog (someone that rejects profoundly the name “evangelical”) accuses some pastors backing Obama of “going low.” I have to agree.

The Examiner floats a rumor that Huckabee followers may go third party. Not at all surprising to me.

Speaking of no surprises, McCain remains largely mum on his faith journey.

Kathleen Parker opines that Warren was the BIG winner over the weekend and that church/state separation was the big loser. I think there is a bit of a straw man in that later conclusion, it is more something to be concerned about than something that actually happened.

Lowell interjects: I did like this bit from Parker’s piece:

The Warren Q&A wasn’t an inquisition exactly, but viewers would be justified in squirming.

What is the right answer, after all? What happens to the one who gets evil wrong? What’s a proper relationship with Jesus? What’s next? Interrogations by rabbis, priests and imams? What candidate dare decline on the basis of mere principle?

Both Obama and McCain gave “good” answers, but that’s not the point. They shouldn’t have been asked. Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that “Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” or that McCain feels that he is “saved and forgiven”?

What does that mean, anyway? What does it prove? Nothing except that these men are willing to say whatever they must — and what most Americans personally feel is no one’s business — to win the highest office.

I think she’s just a bit over the top here, but her questions are provocative. We’re at a point in history when the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of probing a candidate’s religious conscience. The country’s not in a good place on that issue.

Finally . . .

A former Minnesota Governor says something really, really smart.

And, Lowell adds: We are in a little discussion with Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics. Mark seems to be describing, or explaining, the Evangelical claim that “Mormons lie.” (This is a view John and I think is held only by the most extreme anti-Mormon Evangelicals.) Mark opines:

The justification for voting against Mormons is not that they belong to some non-evangelical faith but that their faith misrepresents itself [as Christian], and so is not to be trusted. Electing a Mormon would somehow sanction this way of doing business, and therefore send the wrong message to Americans. Under the circumstances, it is plain how the flip-flop charge [against Romney] reinforces the prejudice. What’s wrong with Romney the politician is what’s wrong with his faith: Both sail under false pretenses.

I find Mark’s argument woefully ambiguous in at least one respect, and commented on his blog:

Mark, I find your point intriguing although I remain unconvinced. Maybe I simply hope you are wrong. For now, I’d be interested in knowing what you think. Are you also saying that both Romney and his faith “sail under false pretenses,” and that a creedal Christian is therefore justified in not voting for him for that reason alone? Or are you saying only that some evangelicals think so?

I look forward to Mark’s response. Meanwhile, I’ll comment on his overall point: It’s based on an enormous straw man. When anti-Mormon Evangelicals say Mormons are not Christian, they really mean Mormons are not orthodox or historical or creed-accepting Christians. We Mormons heartily agree with that. We devoutly believe in Jesus Christ, the historical figure, as the Savior of mankind, but we reject the creeds. Therefore no Mormon who has even a basic understanding of his own faith would pretend to be a creedal Christian. We will insist that we are followers of Jesus Christ. We are very straightforward about that. Now, if some find that approach to Christianity deceptive, it is they who have some explaining to do, not Mormons.

John adds a late post-script: I have been reviewing the number of times we have addressed the “Mormons lie” meme in its many variants lately, and reflecting on the many conversations I have had with people that advance it. It really comes at two levels. The first level is from the rabid silly ones - hardcore bigots that will grab at any straw to justify their bigotry.

Then there are those that are simply uncomfortable, generally because of a lack of knowledge and experience, with Mormonism, and are looking for a reason to stay safely in their shell.

We have a problem on this blog that I do not think we have adequately addressed. There is little to do with the first level group but label them bigots and send them away. The second level group is a different story. Though they indeed practice a soft form of bigotry, to apply the “bigot” label to them simply makes the outside world more hostile, not less, and tends to drive them deeper into their shell instead of invite them out.

Food for thought.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 3 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!?