Weekend Reading
Religious bigotry is alive and well . . .
. . . and its name is Jeremiah Wright. This one hardly needs commentary, it is so self-evident, but I did have two thoughts. One is, how come somebody who spends so much energy fighting one kind of bigotry is so steeped in another? I am sure there are heavy psycho/spiritual answers to that question, but practically speaking it says we need to be blind to discriminatory distinctions.
The other thought is, somewhat unsurprisingly, imagining a Romney White House. Now imagine, say, Mike Huckabee trying to see the president and coming out and saying, “Those Mormons won’t let me near the man.” Wright has generated almost no outrage, which is unbelievable to this observer; his comments are so deeply embedded in hatred. Would the Huckabee analog (I think it an apt analog as he is as much a political embarrassment as Wright is) draw more, or less, press comment – or would it draw support?
Folks, Wright’s comments are as ugly as public pronouncement gets. I am just old enough to recall some of the things said by the redneck officialdom of the deep south during the civil rights movement. There is no difference except for the target. It was deplorable then and it is deplorable now. Forgive my profanity here, but Jeremiah Wright is an unmitigated ass unworthy of any more attention.
. . . but it may come at a price
If there was any single religious group that proved most contentious to Romney presidential aspirations, it was Southern Baptists. And they seem to be going the way of most denominations:
Decades of painful conservative-moderate fights. Stagnant baptism rates. Membership malaise. Surveying the state of the Southern Baptist Convention, seminary president Danny Akin can sum it all up in just six words.
[...]
“I think in many ways, the Southern Baptist Convention mirrors the Republican Party in that they have cultivated such a narrow base,” said the Rev. Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity in Winston-Salem, N.C.
Hmmmmm . . . .
. . . Because people seem to forget
Michael Gerson in WaPo this week (HT: Kruse Kronicle) points out something that the SBC certainly seems to have forgotten in the last election cycle. He looks ta a forthcoming book by Robert Putnam and David Campbell:
At a recent conference of journalists organized by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Putnam outlined the conclusions of “American Grace,” based on research still being sifted and refined. Against the expectations of hard-core secularists, Putnam asserts, “religious Americans are nicer, happier and better citizens.” They are more generous with their time and money, not only in giving to religious causes but to secular ones. They join more voluntary associations, attend more public meetings, even let people cut in line in front of them more readily. Religious Americans are three to four times more socially engaged than the unaffiliated. Ned Flanders is a better neighbor.
Against the expectations of many religious believers, this dynamic has little to do with the content of belief. Theology is not the predictor of civic behavior; being part of a community is. People become social joiners and contributors when they have friends who pierce their isolation and invite their participation. And religious friends, says Putnam, are “more powerful, supercharged friends.”
The SBC’s internal problems are their own to deal with, but with conclusions like that being drawn by sociolologists can there be any doubt that their religiously close-minded nature was a significant contributor to the current woes suffered by the Republican party? Unquestionably, a vibrant political party cannot afford to include the kind of close-mindedness exhibited by many within the SBC, particularly if it is a party that desires the best for the nation.
Religion matters, all religion matters.
Which brings us to . . .
Dan Gilgoff’s rather interesting interview with Grover Norquist:
Where do religious conservatives fit in the attempted revival of the GOP?
The center-right is a “leave us alone” coalition. If you look at why people are in the room, why people vote, why people get involved in politics, everybody in the center-right is there because on the issue that moves their vote, they want to be left alone. Taxpayers: “Leave my money alone.” Gun owners: “Leave my guns alone.” Home-schoolers: “Leave my kids alone.” All the various communities of faith—evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons—the thing that matters to them is to be able to practice their faith and raise their kids. So the religious right, in terms of votes cast, it’s a defensive.But they have leaders sometimes who announce that they want to make everybody be one religion or make everybody think one way. My voters don’t want their taxes raised. They might want tax cuts, but they vote in self-protection against tax increases. If I go to a politician and say, ” If you don’t abolish the death tax tomorrow, all the tax voters will vote against you,” that’s just crazy. It would be good policy, and it would please many people. But I don’t control my voters.
Are you suggesting that some conservative Christian leaders do that?
Some religious right leaders do that, acting as if everybody of their faith persuasion votes on their command, which is insulting, not true, and ridiculous. They shouldn’t talk like that.There are two ways in which people are guilty of that. One is they actually do say something like that. Two is they don’t say that but that’s what they’re heard to say. More often it’s the second one, where somebody implies that everybody agrees with me.
By jove, I think he has something there!
Have a great weekend!
Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Doug King on 13 Jun 2009 at 9:34 pm #
Yes, religious bigotry is alive and well, and most of it is aimed at Jews. I’m at a loss to explain why because it is so irrational and ugly. I wonder to what extent resentment fuels prejudice. There are about as many Jews as Mormons in this country — a tiny slice of the population. Jewish Americans are, on average, far more educated and wealthy than other Americans. They play a disproportionately large role in business and the media. From my outsider’s eyes, Jewish culture excels more than any other at producing high-achieving individuals. I can’t help but look at these people with admiration and wonder, but others respond with vicious hatred. I think the very fact that Jews are so successful makes them targets of bigotry.
This is sad, very sad. Jews have made inestimable contributions to science, literature, and music not to mention scripture. They deserve gratitude and respect, not persecution.
I’ve wondered if a similar form of bigotry plagued Romney’s campaign. Don’t get me wrong — Mormons can’t compare to Jews in terms of education, wealth, or business influence. But many Mormons do adopt a high-achieving mindset.
Mr. Romney is by all accounts very smart and has been very successful in “big business.” His financial savvy strengthened his candidacy in my eyes, but in others it may have triggered fear and resentment. Notwithstanding the family-friendly image of Mormons, the church also has a corporate image (leaders and missionaries in business suits, an official logo, impressive HQ building in SLC, strong organization, etc.). To me, seeing ecclesiastical leaders in business suits symbolizes the equality of all members before God. (My Bishop is just as likely to be a plumber as a lawyer.) But some non-Mormons may see business suits and other corporate features and think they represent money and power. I’ve wondered if this corporate image plays a role in anti-Mormon prejudice.
coltakashi on 15 Jun 2009 at 11:57 am #
I know that the Bush campaign in 2004 had a specific program of getting membership lists from Evangelical churches so they could target campaign literature to those members.
By contrast, the LDS Church specifically prohibits any use of church resources and information for election campaigns for candidates or political parties. Some individual church members will try to claim that the church leadership has quietly endorsed one candidate or another, but the leadership actively tries to be evenhanded in welcomiing contacts with politicians of both major parties.
This of course does not prevent individual politicians from setting themselves up as opponents of the LDS Church in order to appeal to a non-Mormon constituency in Salt Lake City proper (which excludes the Mormon-dominated suburbs in Salt Lake County in cities like Sandy and Draper). That was the stance of former Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City, who enjoyed trading on his status as a lapsed Mormon to enhance his image as a free-thinking progressive. Anderson freely engaged in attacking the Church and in attacking members of the city council who were LDS. He was basically playing the role of the representative of the larger, non-Mormon national culture condemning the “narrow minded” local yokels, in the inimitable tradition of Federal governors and military commanders during the extended territorial period of Utah. Even then, the Church did not actively campaign against Anderson. The fact he could get re-elected in Salt Lake was a constant statement that the Church did not control Utah politics, and that Salt Lake is not a “Vatican City”.