As I watched this video from CatholicVote.com I was reminded once again that for religious conservative voters, what is really important about a candidate is not the details of his or her beliefs about particular religious doctrines, but the candidate’s positions on the great moral issues of our time:

You’ll find more about obvious areas of interfaith cooperation at http://www.whatisprop8.com/religious-viewpoints.html. This particular site addresses Proposition 8, the California ballot measure on same-sex marriage.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Issues?  Nah, just tell me your story . . .

John noticed two stories that I cannot resist mentioning.  In “It’s Not Going to Be About the Issues,” RealClearPolitics’ Tom Bevan observes — accurately, I think — that “[t]his year’s [presidential] contest features two insurgent candidates whose campaigns are built around themes anchored largely in their biographies.”

That only describes the culmination of a campaign in which Mitt Romney was never allowed to escape his biography, particularly his religious biography; Mike Huckabee ran on his denominational biography for awhile, then complained when it was hung around his neck; Rudy Giuliani ran as the hero of 9-11 and not much more; and even Hillary Clinton ran as a Clinton and as a candidate who would take us back to those halcyon times of the 90’s.  Bevan:

Every four years the political intelligentsia laments the fact that the presidential race inevitably boils down to “who you’d rather have a beer with.” Guess what? The public is bellying up to the bar to take the measure of these two candidates over the next eight weeks.

Maybe part of Mitt’s problem was that too many people (rightly) couldn’t imagine having a beer with him.  Read the whole thing.

Oh-oh, now it’s Sarah Palin who has weird religious beliefs . . .

Michael Medved  comments on left-wing alarm over Sarah Palin having grown up in the Assembly of God Church and then, six years ago, joining the Wasilla Bible Church.  Supposedly her “‘church speaks in tongues and believes in “rapture” and believes God tells us to build a pipeline . . . . And . . . tries to “cure” gay people.’”

Without getting into whether or not Palin actually believes those things, Medved says it all here:

Of course, a careful examination of any church or any denomination would find plenty of potentially embarrassing or offensive details. Assaults on Mitt Romney’s Mormonism followed the same game plan as the nasty cracks about Palin: take a religion that enriches the lives of millions of good and decent people and focus on its distinctive or unusual aspects to try to discredit the candidate (and, incidentally, the entire faith community).

Every religion looks odd from the outside – very much including my own. I know that it seems weird to non-Jews (and to non-observant Jews) that my observance involves shunning some delicious foods, praying with a contraption of leather straps and wooden boxes every morning, and not riding in a car on Friday night or Saturday. Those unfamiliar with Catholicism might find themselves perplexed by doctrines ranging from transubstantiation, to the virgin birth, to papal infallibility.

All points we’ve made many times here.   Again, the whole thing is an excellent read and reminder of where we’ve been during this campaign.  I hope we’ve learned something from all that, but I do wonder.
Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

CNSNews has an article on Islamic efforts to use the power of the UN to control speech about religion:

Critics of the OIC campaign say existing human rights instruments adequately protect individuals from incitement to violence based on religion, and they argue that a religion cannot be defamed.

They say the Islamic states promote the idea of religious defamation because international law recognizes that freedom of expression may be limited to protect reputations.

What the OIC actually is opposing is a range of social phenomena to which its objects.

According to a study drawn up by the U.N.’s new high commissioner for human rights ahead of the HRC session, these include “stereotyping and negative portrayal of religions, in particular Islam, [and] the association of Islam with violence and terrorism” after 9/11, as well as “ridicule,” “insults” and “Islamophobia.”

(Examples cited in OIC documents include newspaper cartoons caricaturing Mohammed, and a Dutch lawmaker’s documentary released earlier this year, linking the Koran to terrorism.)

Looking at this caused me to reflect on our American political battles just ended.   Mormons have been treated throughout this campaign, both primary and Veep, to any number of really ugly, insulting statements.  They have been subject to misrepresnetation and in some cases, accusations that almost rise to the level of liable.  As we have denounced those utterances on this blog time and time again, it has been tempting to want to control those statements along the lines that are here proposed concerning Islam.

As you read through the article, one cannot help but be struck by how Orwellian a society would be that actually did so.  As objectionable as much of what we have chronicled on this blog has been, it is important to remember that the fact that people can say such things without the fear of reprisal, argument perhaps, but  no reprisal, is part of what makes American great.

Suffering such insulting speech is difficult, but consider the alternative.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

I always figured we would be back, election postmortems would demand it.  As the race of journalism was replaced by the slow progress of historical writing (and as we attempted to add to it), I figured we’d have things to talk about here, but not this soon!

Old Business

Well, it did not take long for somebody to blame EVERYTHING that happened in re: Romney on religion.  In this case it is a Sprinfield, MO columnist.

We can thank the media for killing Romney’s chance at being two. With constant references to his religion, you’d think he was in the running for Assistant Head Pastor of America.

[…]

There is a double standard when it comes to religion. The media dumps on conservatives of all religious stripes, while giving liberals a free pass.

OK, having spent the last 2.5 years documenting the role religion played in Romney’s political fortunes, I would be a fool to say it was not important - particularly in the primary campaign.  I think, however, that it was not much of a factor in the Veep race.

LDS people need to be careful in how they approach this.  In the final analysis I think this is less about discrimination and more about identity.  Not so much that Romney was hated because he was LDS (save in some dark, dank, ugly corners of traditional Christianity), but that Huckabee, and now Palin, connect, on a pure identity basis, with people that just significantly outnumber the LDS.  In a different election with different players, this would have been a very different story.

It is way too early to start writing the history of this election and make final judgments about what mattered and what did not and whether “Mormons need not apply,” is a conclusion that can be drawn with sufficient evidence to support it.

As Romney supporters, all of us must exercise great care in not allowing our disappointment to override our reason when it comes to responding to the results.

Besides, the bigots still say it was “the flip-flop.”  Remember Lawrence O’Donnell? - The Big Love actor that levelled a rather bigoted diatribe Romney’s way on McLaughlin?  He was reported at the convention yesterday:

Dorchester homey Lawrence O’Donnell, who plays a Mormon attorney on HBO’s “Big Love,” said Mitt Romney’s faith wasn’t his downfall in the 2008 presidential election.

“It was much more do to with his wealth and his flip-flopping, said O’Donnell,” a former political operative for the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a writer/producer of “The West Wing.” “Being a Mormon was way down the list.

Well, of course it was from O’Donnell’s perspective; otherwise, instead of an astute commentator he would just be a bigot!

Lowell adds:  After McDonnell’s shocking on-air anti-Mormon meltdown on McLaughlin, I’m surprised anyone cares what he thinks about anything.  I don’t.  By the way, he plays a polygamist attorney on “Big Love,” not a Mormon.

Ah, but then Romney was never the victim of his religion in this cycle - it was Mike Huckabee?!

With the mounting complications over John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate, some conservatives have been asking why the expected Republican nominee didn’t choose former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won eight GOP primary and caucus contests and appeals to the same Christian social conservatives who have hailed the Palin pick. After all, Huckabee has more executive experience, was vetted by the media during the primary season, and honed his debating skills in myriad televised matchups. The answer, according to Richard Land who heads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is pretty simple. Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister and, Land says, “polls show that 15 to 20 percent” of the electorate don’t think a minister should be president.

I am going to bet that Land is being taken a bit out of context there, but regardless, talk about being “way down the list.”  Which one of Huckabee’s opponents EVER brought up, even as an “innocent question” to a reporter, his former occupation?  Just wondering.

New Business

Lowell and I cannot seem to stop talking politics.  So, we were discussing the issue of the Palin daughter pregnancy yesterday and  Lowell said this little wonder:

Morally, we are about to see a mini-debate on families, pre-marital sex, sex education, abstinence, parental responsibility, sin, forgiveness, responsibility, unconditional love, and so forth.  Those are not good subjects for the political arena, and are not safe in the hands of the MSM.  Nor are they McCain’s strong suit.  It will be interesting and probably a little depressing.

And, as if on cue, as soon as I turned to my feedreader, Al Mohler had risen to precisely that point:

But the entire nation felt the awkwardness of the situation, and even part of the embarrassment.  Yes, as Steve Schmidt said, “Life happens,” but not always like this.  And Mark Salter is certainly correct in describing the situation as “an American family.”  Still, this is not the script many families would choose — especially evangelical families who had been most encouraged by Gov. Palin’s choice as Sen. McCain’s running mate.

Said Rich Lowry:

The fact is that Palin was largely a political, not a governing choice.

Which Jonathan Martin backed up with:

All that complaining over the years by Republicans about identity politics and political correctness

Yeah, never mind.

But it is probably best summed up in Hugh Hewitt’s repeated citation on his radio show of the Tee shirts he saw at the convention yesterday reading “I am Sarah Palin.”

Palin’s obvious appeal is identity based.  Her daughter’s pregnancy puts us in the unfortunate position of having to “identify” with a family that has responded in the best possible manner to a most unfortunate circumstance, but in so doing we seem to lose sight of the fact that the ideal is to avoid the circumstance altogether.  Reminding people of that is likely to bring charges of “religious zealot.”  Such debate will undoubtedly degenerate into a debate over whether Christianity is essentially about forgiveness or standards - which simply has no place in politics.

Too early to say whether this helps or hurts the McCain campaign.  But not too early to judge that this lowers the level of national debate - again - and that is sad.

And now, hopefully, we can get back to transitioning from events to history on this blog . .  . .
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Looks like Sarah Palin is going to be John McCain’s VP Nominee.

First of all, kudos to the McCain organization for a masterful handling of the Veep build up. To hold it close until hours before is an amazing thing.

This also means that for now, our job here is done. *SIGH*

We will probably be working on this site in the future to improve its archiving capacity, this has been an important issue and it is important for it to be properly recorded. We would ask for our readers to provide us with some input in that department - let us know what you think was our best work and most worth preserving. Let us know who you think were the heroes and villains in the story we have followed here.

And of course, should Mitt Romney, or any other Mormon politician return to this level of national prominence I am fairly confident we will be back.

Some Comments On The Palin Pick . . .

Really, the only thing she brings to the table is her gender, but she also does no harm. She is safe with a possible bump from disaffected Hillary lovers, that’s about it. At this point the Republican ticket lives and dies on John McCain and John McCain alone.

To our Romney loving friends . . .

There has been a lot of talk of “Romney or I am not voting for McCain.” Please, that is just petulant. This is not the ticket any of us wanted, but it is the ticket we have, an abstention, an independent vote, or, please no, an Obama vote is a losing vote. Take a few days here, mourn a bit, and then get busy. McCain may not be everything we want, but Obama will spell a serious problem for the nation - we can ill afford it.

To my new Mormon friends . . .

Thank you, you have been gracious, generous and wonderful people. I look forward to continued friendships.

To Hugh Hewitt . . .

It was all your idea - THANKS!

To the Romney family and organization . . .

The classiest. Nothing more need be said.

To Lowell . . .

Words fail. Heck of a partnership. I hope for future adventures. Seriously, it is difficult to contemplate the days without our somewhat constant IM chatter.

Where from here?

Well, I will still be at Blogotional, but that is in no way a political blog. It has been suggested (Hugh again) that I start up JohnSchroeder.com, and I am giving that serious thought, but find it hard to believe that apart from this issue anyone really cares that much about what I think, so for now it is just churning in the mental pot. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

God’s richest blessings to all that have turned to these pages.

Lowell adds:

Amen to all that John said.  I’ll probably post something longer, later, but we will not be posting every day here.  I will miss that.  But I do want to focus on what I have gained, not what I am losing:

• A good friend in John Schroeder.   An open-minded, kind and thoughtful man who has taught me much.
• An understanding of orthodox Christianity that I never dreamed of having before.
• A deep appreciation of that same tradition.
  
• An abiding affection for, and gratitude to, Mitt Romney and his family.

It has been a great ride.  I know little about Sarah Palin, but she seems to be an American that religious conservatives can get behind and be proud of.  And yes, I intend to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin, and I will do so enthusiastically and with a smile on my face.

We are not disappearing.  I’ve got some additional thoughts here, and we’ll be back with still further thoughts now and then. Until that time, our Heavenly Father’s choicest blessings to all our wonderful readers.
Sphere: Related Content

11 Comments »

Lowell and I have both has severe attacks of “too doggone busy” so welcome to today’s link list:

Church and politics quiz - haven’t had time to look at it, tell us what you think.

About the Dems and faith:

• They are pushing.
• Pentecostals are in the lead.
• Has their push worked? - WSJ
• Challenges - the Examiner
• Pelosi’s attempt to usurp Papal authority starting to see some MSM light.

“On Faith” is trying to advise the candidates. Is it just me or has this once valuable forum gotten a bit silly?

Southern Baptists getting out the vote with prayer.

No middle ground on Romney?

Finally in Huck-a-land:

Idle speculation. Which in the end was denied by the Huckster himself in an interview on Limbaugh yesterday.

RUSH: Well, he’s got a Pelosi problem on that. You know, she’s been denounced by as many Catholic Church leaders as have chosen to speak out on it and she’s standing by it. You know, these people are sitting ducks I think if the Republican campaign is run the right way. Are you on the vice presidential short list?

HUCKABEE: I don’t even think I’m on the long list. I have not been asked to pack a bag to go to Dayton on Friday so I don’t think there’s any illusion. If he’s looking for a female, the closest I would get is if they would ask me to maybe dress in drag and run that way but I don’t think that’s going to happen, so, no, I don’t think I’m on the list at all.

But the interview was marked by our hearing, once again some of Huckabee’s more vacant denials about making Romney’s religion an issue:

RUSH: Thank you. So are you, sir. Now let’s get right to the chase here. I said something a couple weeks ago, maybe ten days ago, about you and Governor Romney that you strenuously objected to. What was it that I said that was incorrect?

HUCKABEE: Well, that I had made an issue out of his religion and had sort of poisoned him with evangelicals and that’s simply not true. You know, one of the things that I’ve been very adamant about is that I don’t think his religion has one thing to do with whether people should support him. Some of my favorite public servants in America happen to be the same religion he is, the Morman religion. That would be people like Mike Leavitt, Orrin Hatch, Jon Huntsman, the current governor of Utah. Great people. It has nothing to do with it.

RUSH: Yeah, but they’re not running for president nor running against you for the nomination. I guess I track this back to at one point you talking about what Romney believes, that Christ and Lucifer were brothers.

HUCKABEE: It was a question that I actually asked of the New York Times Magazine writer, because he knew a lot more about Mormonism than I did. It appeared as 11 words in about a 10,000-word story, and that got all the play. I personally apologized to Mitt because it did come across wrong and it’s simply not the way I feel and it isn’t, and I don’t think Mitt Romney’s religion has a thing to do with it. I think, you know, a record has to do with it, but not his religion. And frankly, my attitude is, the primary’s over, we need to get behind John McCain, support him, He’s our best chance, right now, our only chance to beat Barack Obama, and Barack Obama will destroy small business, his plans for higher taxes would be abominable, and his absolutely frankly deplorable view about when life begins is nothing short of frightening.

There is nothing new here, save for the fact that he has taken about every opportunity at press he can get to tell this tale after the “anybody but Romney” push of a couple of weeks ago. People of faith like us, creedal or Mormon, are big on apologies - it is after all where redemption is rooted. Politics is a very different story - politicians never apologize; they change the subject, they spin, they “move on,” but apologies are a sign of weakness and a politician never wants to appear weak.

Huckabee now has a giant millstone hanging around his neck and he is drowning. He is obviously trying to get it off and get to the surface, but he is not having much luck. What the followers of this blog, and many others, clearly want is an apology, but he is a politician so that ain’t happening. What’s he to do?

Well, in this humble blogger’s analysis he has only one option, and it weakens him almost as much as an apology. He must repudiate those that did blatantly and remoreslessly make Romney’s faith an issue, particularly those that did so under the guise of his campaign. He will lose an enormous amount of his support when he does, but it is his only hope of ever gaining any mainstream support.

The fact that Romney is on the VP short list and Huck is not has served as a severe chastisement to Huck. (His admission of that fact above is something of an apology) And our open letter of last week, along with others like it that have undoubtedly been written, could have resulted in some behind the scenes communication to send Huck the needed messages. He clearly wants to move to the correct side of this, even if he does retain his personal distaste for Mitt Romney. (The evidence of this later fact remains strong) He just has one more step to take.

Keep coming Huck, shore is in sight.

Lowell adds: There is one element that has been distressingly absent throughout this election cycle: Denunciation. McCain never disavowed Cyndi Mosteller’s comments. Huck, while always putting on the most innocent of airs about his own comments, has never been able to bring himself to say anything at all about, much less denounce or disavow, the ugly comments of his supporters. This is undeniable. I wish Rush Limbaugh had asked Huckabee what he thought about the comments of bigots like Joel Belz, or about the comments on Huck’s own web site (which were not removed) referring to Mitt Romney as “Mormon garbage.” I wonder if comments calling Lieberman a “sneaky Jew” would have been left on Huck’s site? It continues to amaze me that in the United States of America the general response to such repulsive speech has been silence, which I think is born of outright cowardice.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »