Article VI Blog

As Romney has re-emerged with his book tour, we have seen some efforts to put him in the “Mormon box,” but in general things have been much, much quieter than last time around.  No major pieces on Romney’s “evangelical problem,” none of that.  But last Friday Bill Maher decided to turn the heat to levels we have not seen since Weisberg and “the founding whoppers of Mormonism” slam.  In discussing the airplane incident, Maher said:

“I just couldn’t help but think maybe this has something to do with the fact that the Mormons traditionally have not had a great relation with the black people.”

So, now by religious implication, Romney is a racist.  There are no words to describe this but “despicable.”  The Mormon church has worked very hard to undo  the racial injustices that were a part of its history, as frankly have all churches.  My own Presbyterian church actually went through a northern/southern split (in later years the split was more about the role of women in the church, but its roots were in the Civil War)  and did not manage to pull itself back together again until the 1980’s – 10 years after the Mormons fixed their racial issues.

These comments by Maher are an outrage.  Sadly there is nothing new in Maher being outrageous, particularly about Mormons, but this one just cuts too close.  This is a not a stereotype – this is an implied accusation that Mitt Romney, and all Mormons, are racists.  Such cannot and should not be suffered.  The Newsbusters piece linked show the paucity of the evidence that Maher brings to bear, which is fine, but that is not the issue.  This is simply not a charge to be leveled without DIRECT evidence concerning the individual.

But I have already given this more attention than it deserves because no one really listens to Maher anymore, at least no one serious.  That he has a TV show, even one that only like 6 people watch. is criminal but in this day and age we have more television distribution capability than we have decent programming so fools are going to get outlets.  That’s what Bill Maher is – a fool.

And while we are discussing outrages – you remember Joe Carter.  Joe is a leading Evangelical blogger, now serving as blog editor at First Things.  You’ll also remember that Joe seconded, loudly and influentially, Joel Belz’ utterly bigoted “Mormons lie” piece last cycle.  Well, writing last week about the religious affiliation of recent Supreme Court nominees (it has been tilting very Catholic of late) Joe said this:

I think I can speak for many of my fellow conservative evangelicals, however, in saying that even if the quota wasn’t going to go to another mainline Protestant WASP, we wouldn’t have much interest in a religious affirmative action program. Personally, I’d rather have someone on the bench like Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts who shares my judicial philosophy than have  a quota for someone merely because they can share a pew with me on Sunday morning.

[Emphasis added.]  Gee Joe – when it comes to Catholics you are willing to judge them by their stances on issues, but when it comes to Mormons you are not?  When you examine Carter’s body of work here you discover nothing more than simple, base discrimination, and that is outrageous.  For one group he will judge the individual, but another group is beyond such evaluation and simply discarded.

Who knows, maybe Carter’s comments here are evidence that he is learning, even changing his mind, but he needs to write about that if such is the case. UPDATE LATER THE DAY OF PUBLICATION: Joe Carter has, as of this date, in the post in question, retracted his endorsement of the Belz’ piece – indicating that he has indeed changed his mind about the role of Romney’s religion. Based on that I will withdraw my accusation of “base discrimination” made above. Though Carter’s distaste for Romney remains evident, that such not be based on a religious charge is all we ask in this blog. Back to the original post.

And speaking of Carter’s writings, another piece he did at the “First Thoughts” blog illustrates part of the problem when many evangelicals approach politics.  He works very hard, in the tall grass, to distinguish Rousseau’s “civil religion” from Ben Franklin’s “public religion.”  There are a couple of comments to be made here.  In citing “public religion,” Carter relies on Jon Meacham.  I know for a fact that Mecham’s book was one of the major sources Romney used in preparing his “Faith in America” speech – talk about sharing public philosophy!  Secondly, the distinction Carter is making here, while intellectually valid, is so far past the average voter that it can only serve to confuse matters.  In the modern era, when discussing retail level politics, messaging matters almost as much as message.

When it comes to religion and politics and the general public our messaging has to make our message accessible – this sort of stuff is simply off-putting, it practically reeks of “you’re not smart enough to participate in this discussion.”  We need to be searching for language that unites conservatives of faith, not makes distinctions no one wants to bother with.  Recent studies show:

. . . that young adults hold their religious beliefs in abstract, “mentally checked off and filed away.” Doctrine does not determine their lives. Religion is about being good and living a good life, not believing the right things.

Now, the article I just cited goes on to argue  the need for doctrine, but that is a religious argument and we are talking politics here.  Politics are about meeting people where they are in order to get stuff done that needs to be done.  If this is where people are, then when it comes to political activism, that’s where we need to go.

Moving on . . .

That’s a lot of discussion and there is still a lot of news, so let’s go bullet form.

Glenn Beck Is Simply No Help . . .

Because people think “all Mormons are alike,” Glenn Beck matters, but he sure has moved into silly land.  And by the way, it is no more Beck’s business to tell Catholics how to behave than it is my business to tell Mormons what to do.  Here’s the coverage:

• The “Contentions” blog
• The “First Thoughts” blog
• The New York Times
• The “Out of Ur” blog (Christianity Today)
• HuffPo

“Candidate” News . . .

Romney . . .

Both Politics Daily and the CSM note Romney’s comments about the Tea Party Movement, and seeking to bring it in/keep it in the Republican fold.  That’s ironic, since apparently the movement “scares” evangelicals.  But then Instapundit and Gateway Pundit and GetReligion see through the canard.

If there is a new narrative  meme forming around Romney, it’s Massachusetts health care.  Slate and David Brody have observations.

“Team Romney” continues to advance.

Finally, Romney talks about last time.

Thune takes the first action to demonstrate the rumors are probably real.

Pawlenty is just not getting anywhere, and in this case taking religious punches.

Huckabee continues to poll well in Iowa.  (Gee, there’s a surprise)

Palin continues to have an identity crisis.

Religion In The News . . .

• Religious schools, homosexuality, demonstrations.
• Curtailing religious speech?

Deep Thoughts . . .

These are all pieces worthy of a lot of discussion, but Maher’s outrage had to consume that, so here they are for your edification and thought.  Feel free to discuss in the comments – or use the discussion center at our Facebook page.

• About Romney’s father
• About Kennedy
• “On Faith” asks the first interesting question in months
• John Mark Reynolds
• John Piper

Lowell adds . . .

No one pays much attention to Bill Maher. That’s why he says outrageous things – to get noticed.  Enough said about him.

As for former Huckabee supporter, outspoken Romney detractor and foe of Mormonism generally Joe Carter, his much-labored-over First Thoughts piece is summarized well in one of the comments:

[T]here is too much confusion, in my opinion, in your essay’s articulations of “civil religion” for one even to agree or disagree with it.

And Glenn Beck. Oh, dear, Glenn Beck.  Most Mormons who are not hard-core right-wingers will tell you they wince often when they hear what he has to say (and only the hard-core watch him).  Still, it was interesting to see how some of the commenters to Joe Carter’s piece on Beck took the opportunity to bash Beck’s Mormonism, although his show is political.  I guess those are the kinds of reader Carter attracts.  That’s not the high-minded First Things crowd I have known.

As for the ludicrous notion that the tea partiers scare Evangelicals (doesn’t the MSM love a rift among conservatives?), I liked this quote from Grover Norquist in the L.A. Times:

“The reason why social conservatives and economic conservatives can play well together … is the guy who wants to go to church all day just wants to be left alone. So does the guy who wants to play with his gun all day, and the guy who wants to make money all day,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “They don’t agree on how to spend their time, but they do agree on their central issue: They want to be left alone.”

Well, yes.  Common ground is common ground.  I wish more conservative leaders would talk about this.

And yes, Romney has to come up with a convincing reponse to the claim that RomneyCare and ObamaCare are the same thing.  They are not, but the charge is sticking.  Mitt needs a short, non-wonkish answer to the charge.  If you watch the video just below all the way through, you will see that he is getting closer, but he’s not there.  The right 38 words at the beginning of his answer would have done the trick:

In Massachusetts we imposed a state plan, not a federal one.  Health care should not be reformed at the federal level.  Besides, our plan was based on conservative free-market principles, and you don’t find any of those in ObamaCare.

Somewhat ironically, Romney’s superb intellect is causing him problems. As a health care lawyer I know exactly what he is saying, but most people don’t spend every day in the tall grass the way I do. Romney needs to break this stuff down a little more for people.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 15 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The book Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin is one of those “inside the campaign” books that is both fascinating and gossipy all at the same time.  But the purpose of this post is not to review the book.  Chapter 6 of that book has the intriguing title “Barack in a Box” which we have here borrowed.  In that chapter is this most insightful paragraph:

The debates fed a narrative that was becoming pervasive in the press: Edwards was running on bold ideas (universal health care, a new war on poverty); Hillary was the mistress of the nitty-gritty; and Obama was a lightweight, all sizzle and no steak. This is what the media did—it put every candidate in a neat little box and slapped a pithy label on it. Obama understood. But for the past three years, as the press fawned over him, the box he was stuffed into bore a succession of tags that were flattering and advantageous. New. Fresh. Inspiring. Post-racial. He’d never had a negative run of press on the national level, and therefore never developed the kind of thick protective hide that repelled the media’s slings and arrows.

[Emphasis added.]  There is little question,  as we discussed in our review of campaign ‘08, that the box Romney was most stuffed into was labeled “Mormon.”  As Romney has begun, with his book tour, to reemerge publicly, some in the press are continuing with that narrative, as we saw in yesterday’s review of the coverage.   Due to Mike Huckabee’s deliberate attempts to box in Evangelicals, being stuffed in the “Mormon” box harmed Romney significantly in ‘08.

Questions:

• Will the press be able to put Romney in that box this time, or will it be so “old news” that to use it is a sign of poor reporting?
• What strategies, if any, can Romney employ to break out of the box?
• Should Romney ignore the box – pretend it is not there?
• Assume neither Huckabee nor Palin are in, will the box be harmful?  Assume one or both are in?
• Should the CJCLDS take steps to reduce the potential harm the box might cause?  What would those steps be?

We are interested in our readers’ input here.  Comments on this blog are subject to moderation, which means they may not get up for a while as your moderators have limited time to check.  This post should appear on our Facebook fan page within 24 hours (although at this moment the Facebook servers seems to be a bit behind) and there comment is immediate and unmoderated, though limited by size.  Either place, let us know what you think.  Answer these questions and any others that may come up in the course of the discussion.

Lowell adds . . .

 

Since John posed the questions, I guess I can try to answer them.  (It would be bad form for John to answer himself.)  Here goes:

 

• Will the press be able to put Romney in that box this time, or will it be so “old news” that to use it is a sign of poor reporting?

I think they will because for so many of the liberal members of the MSM, Romney’s religion is important because he is conservative.  They do not manifest any concern over any liberal politician’s religion.  Example:  Harry Reid, Romney’s fellow Mormon.

• What strategies, if any, can Romney employ to break out of the box?

His only hope is to continue to respond patiently that his religion doesn’t matter to the American people, which he has been doing for years now.  I certainly do not think any overt effort, like The Speech, will be necessary.  I think such a step would attract attention to, and legitimize the issue.

• Should Romney ignore the box – pretend it is not there?

See comments above.

• Assume neither Huckabee nor Palin are in, will the box be harmful?  Assume one or both are in?

If neither is in, then I think the issue is almost neutralized.  If one of them is in, it will be present, if for not other reason than that “The Question” is like catnip to the MSM and the blogosphere if there is an Evangelical-Mormon divide they can write about.

• Should the CJCLDS take steps to reduce the potential harm the box might cause?  What would those steps be?

Hard to imagine what the Church could do without making things worse for everyone.  But that’s just my opinion, and I the Church never consults me. (Very wise of them.)

And, in the words of Forrest Gump, “That’s what I have to say about that.”

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Romney Remains Front-and-Center…

…funny how a book tour does that.  We’ll start with a sampling of the headlines:

• Mitt Romney Makes No Apologies – Greta Van Susteren interview
• Interview: Romney grilled on health, policy and private life – Fox Utah coverage of the Cavuto interview.  Special note, Ann Romney tackles “the Mormon Question” and she is a converted Episcopalian.
• Mitt Romney Says He Will Make 2012 Presidential Decision At Year’s End – FOXNews – and relatedly – Romney Ties Decision on Presidential Bid to Outcome of November Elections
• Mitt Romney Offers Ideas And ‘No Apology’ – NPR audio and transcript
• Romney in the Wilderness, Waiting – Robert Costa at NRO
• Romney: GOP’s 2012 nominee must be Reaganesque – The Washington Times
• Mitt Romney: Rejecter of Populism – The Atlantic

You just have to love this letter-to-the-editor out of Des Moines:

Had Republicans set aside their problem with Mitt Romney’s religion, I have no doubt we would now have a president leading our nation with honesty and integrity, who actually understands fiscal responsibility and who has a track record of fixing institutions that are broken.

And some coverage just won’t help.  Consider this from The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room on comment by Orrin Hatch:

Hatch endorsed Romney, a fellow Mormon, for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, though Romney eventually lost the GOP primary to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Why the “fellow Mormon” crack?  Do we read such things about Episcopalians or Presbyterians or Catholics?  Clearly the press, at least some of the press, is not through playing with this particular toy . . .

and “Flip-Flop/Inauthentic” is still out there . . .

Mitt Romney is still trying to be what he isn’t – Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal Constitution

Mitt Romney, version 2012 – The Boston Globe (hey, there’s a surprise!)

Compared To Other Possibles . . .

. . . Romney looks pretty good though.  Palin is shopping a reality TV show.  That’s new, and inadvisable, ground for a presidential possible, but then we have contended all along, she’s not running.  In London they think she came out ahead in last Tuesday’s late night wars, but conclude with this stunner:

Neither candidate has yet said whether they will stand. Romney told Fox News: “I’m not going to make that decision until I have to . . . and it’ll be after November.”

He was given a boost from the blogging sphere by claims that the Tonight Show manipulated Palin’s performance by adding laughter tracks to cover up audience groans and silence. “I can recount many portions where there was little or no laughter or response,” wrote Michael Stinson, who was at the recording.

“But at the later broadcast they are smoothed over with applause and laughter that were not there at the taping.”

And poor Tim Pawlenty, he has gone from losing traction to spinning on ice.

Meanwhile the assault on religion generally continues . . .

. . . although it is getting “grayer.”  There was this story out of Tennessee covered by a couple of different Catholic bloggers on a tract put out by a Baptist church proclaiming Catholics not be “Christian” and calling Eucharist wafers “death cookies.”  Just a couple of comments.  Thankfully this is not political debate – it’s religious, and religions differ.  But this is just ugly.  Talk about places where Catholic doctrine is wrong, argue, but “death cookies” is just over the edge!

Which brings me to this interesting piece from a blog featuring religion conversations between Mormons and more conventional forms of Christianity:

A common characterization of the difference between Mormonism and Evangelicalism is the idea that Evangelicals emphasize orthodoxy (right belief) and Mormons emphasize orthopraxy (right action).  If you ask an Evangelical and a Mormon “what is more important a correct understanding of God or the proper mode for baptism?”  you will most likely get different answers from each.

Catholics, like Mormons, emphasize orthopraxy and it is funny how the conversation seems to get really ugly along that othropraxy/orthodoxy line.  Of course when all you have is the intellectual ascent of orthodoxy, it is very hard to do much but argue.

Which brings me to this interesting piece of health care reform:

Now I do not object to those whose opposition to even indirect funding of abortion is unrelated to matters of faith.  If they feel strongly about abortion as a public policy issue, fine.  I can live with that.  More important, so could James Madison.  (Although I absolutely have nothing but contempt for those who argue that all life is precious while supporting war and capital punishment — and opposing free health care for every child in America out of concern for “life”).

But if the issue is one of personal faith (i.e., the particular religion a Member of Congress adheres to), legislators must not consider it in the making or unmaking of policy.  Frankly, I apply the same logic to Jewish Members and Israel.  Their belief — if some actually hold the belief — that God gave the land to the Jews should be utterly irrelevant to US policymaking.

The views of the various religious orthodoxies on any of the so-called social issues like abortion or marriage should be confined to their respective house of worship and their homes, not the houses of Congress.

Interesting statements.  Policy is based on the will of the people and if the majority of the people have a particular religious view, or multiple religious views arrive at the same policy conclusion forming a majority, then it seems to me that religious view should prevail and become policy.  Also, his argument is somewhat self-defeating.  If you cannot form a policy based on religion, you cannot reasonable reject one based on religion either.

But there is an interesting hypothetical in all this – what is an elected official to do if his personal religious views are at odds with his constituency, or the law?  It seems to me that unlike most politicians, Mitt Romney had to face this very dilemma when it comes to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.  I think he made the right choice – follow the law.

Speaking of Interesting . . .

I found this really interesting about freedom.

And this is interesting as well.  A leading Evangelical blogger is quoting one of the preeminent Calvinistic preachers trying to sum up that preachers views on political action.  Quoth the preacher (John Piper):

My main job is not to unite believers and unbelievers behind worthwhile causes.  Somebody should do this.  But that is not my job.  Some of you ought to be doing that with a deep sense of Christian calling.  My job is to glorify Jesus Christ by calling his people to be distinctively Christian in the way they live their lives.

[Emphasis added.]  So many preachers use politics as a lever to gain converts or at least proclaim their viewpoint, never understanding that such is politically self-defeating.  It is great to see a preacher that understands the inter-relationship between the two.

Lowell adds . . .

The blog post about Mormons, Orthopraxy and orthodoxy caught my eye.  Not surprisingly, I think most Mormons would find it an oversimplification at best, flat-out wrong at worst.  But that is how religious discussions go.  There is just so much nuance and it is so hard to convey.  For the record, Mormons believe that the foundational principles of the Gospel are first, faith in Jesus Christ and second, repentance.  Not much orthopraxy there.  After a person has, by faith in Christ, repented, next are the first “ordinances” (a term unique to Mormons, I think) of the Gospel:  baptism by immersion and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.  So practices (ordinances) are preceded by belief (faith) and are animated by it.  But I’ll stop there.  This little discussion is an excellent reason why such “inside baseball” aspects of religion are not appropriate for evaluating candidates.  Indeed, I daresay that my theological cousins among Evangelicals who promote the idea that such nuances are in fact important are much more familiar with their own faith’s nuances then those of others.  Not pointing fingers, just trying to analyze the problem.  By the way, if you ask two Mormons “what is more important a correct understanding of God or the proper mode for baptism?”  you will still probably get different answers from each.

Regarding Orrin Hatch’s endorsement of Romney, by the way, I am still waiting for the MSM to report that Chuck Schumer has been endorsed by one of his “fellow Jews.”

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The Book was released this week and with it Romney went public.  The Tour does not really start until next week as this week has been consumed pretty much with sticking around New York and doing so much media that one could have mistakenly thought he already was president.  I have been in New York all week myself and managed to miss him at every turn, but then its a big place for such a small island.

I think the best summary of all the media was, unsurprisingly, by Kathryn Jean Lopez.

If you had any doubts about who he is, you’re seeing the real thing now. Watching Mitt Romney on the No Apology

And if a social issue hits his desk — based on his Massachusetts record — he’s going to do what he can to preserve families and life. (And that, by the way, makes a huge difference. We don’t, for instance, have such a person in the White House right now. And it can have a chilling effect: in executive orders, in the courts, on staffing, in health care, etc.) tour thus far, he’s talking about what he wants to talk about, what moves him: being a Mr. Fix-It businessman — on the economy, on diplomacy, on health care. He wants to do this because he believes America is great and should and can continue to be. He appreciates — in a firsthand and in a practical, sociological way — that families are the building block of a great country, and he sees how good policies help them. And that’s what he wants to talk about.

[...]

That, I believe, is the No Apology big picture: This is Mitt Romney.

She accuses him of making “dorky” jokes, and she’s right.  Here’s some video.  Even “The Hill” got into the dorky joke act.  Can’t be too dorky if they keep getting repeated this way.

And speaking of video, it is boutiful with all this media.  The Hannity interview, courtesy “ComMITTed to Romney”, was one of my favs.  But that same interview was used to “prove” flip-flopping by some lefties.  Romney is answering two different questions, not flip-flopping in the mash-up.  I don’t think I need to break it down for you, but if I do, leave a comment, we’ll be happy to ’splain.

On the right, the big issue confronting Romney is Palin, populism, and the tea party movement.  There were some interesting takes from the Economist and Allahpundit.  Which takes us back to K-Lo’s comments.  Romney is Romney, which means populism is not what he is about – smart, capable and pragmatic is.  What happens in the next few years is going to be based on which direction the nation, and Republicans go, not Mitt Romney.

But Sadly, The Mormon Thing Seems To Be Coming Back With Him

Says David Brody, who is pimping an appearance by ROmney at his media outlet:

Mitt Romney, who is clearly positioning himself for a 2012 run at the White House starts his book tour this week.

The book is called “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.”

Despite the rumor, it is not called “Mitt Romney Goes Rogue”. That’s Palin territory. And it is not called, “I’m a Mormon. Deal With It.”

I think Brody is trying to be funny there, but he is missing the mark pretty badly.  Joel Campbell at Mormon Times points out a couple of other examples where Romney can’t escape the issue.  Campbell opens his comments by linking to the USAToday piece that Lowell commented on last week.  That seems to be happening with Campbell now and then – picking something up that we have commented on and expanding it slightly.  (Just thought we’d remind our loyal readers who is in the lead here.)

But the most egregious Mormon shot came, again unsurprisingly, from Newsweek.  (Serious readers of this blog will remember that in our comprehensive review of ‘08 we named Newsweek as the most egregious example of beating the Mormon drum in the MSM.)  The photo essay by Newsweek seems to go out of its way to drive home a single message – “Romney is Mormon.”

Mormons do not talk about Evangelicals like myself this way, I really do wonder why Evangelicals are compelled to do so?

But the most interesting development on this front is from a small post on an Evangelical discussion blog I routinely haunt.  Remember that somewhat controversial “Christ and the constitution” painting – well, some obvious leftie thought it needed “improvement.”  The original painting is indicative of the newly emerging issue between Mormons and Evangelicals, but this “parody” should emphasize that we have far more in common than we do differences.

And Speaking Of Those Commonalities…

JFK’s now famous Houston speech was considered a centerpiece for religious tolerance when he ran in 1960.  This week, Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput delivered a speech at Houston Baptist University criticizing and refining the Kennedy approach to religion and governance. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)  The criticism:

Fifty years ago this fall, in September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for president, spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.  He had one purpose.  He needed to convince 300 uneasy Protestant ministers, and the country at large, that a Catholic like himself could serve loyally as our nation’s chief executive.  Kennedy convinced the country, if not the ministers, and went on to be elected.  And his speech left a lasting mark on American politics.  It was sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong.  Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life.  And he wasn’t merely “wrong.”  His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation.  Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.

[...]

For his audience of Protestant ministers, Kennedy’s stress on personal conscience may have sounded familiar and reassuring.  But what Kennedy actually did, according to Jesuit scholar Mark Massa, was something quite alien and new.  He “‘secularize[d]’ the American presidency in order to win it.”  In other words,  “[P]recisely because Kennedy was not an adherent of that mainstream Protestant religiosity that had created and buttressed the ‘plausibility structures’ of [American] political culture at least since Lincoln, he had to ‘privatize’ presidential religious belief – including and especially his own – in order to win that office.”⁶

In Massa’s view, the kind of secularity pushed by the Houston speech “represented a near total privatization of religious belief – so much a privatization that religious observers from both sides of the Catholic/Protestant fence commented on its remarkable atheistic implications for public life and discourse.”  And the irony — again as told by Massa — is that some of the same people who worried publicly about Kennedy’s Catholic faith got a result very different from the one they expected.  In effect, “the raising of the [Catholic] issue itself went a considerable way toward ‘secularizing’ the American public square by privatizing personal belief.  The very effort to ‘safeguard’ the [essentially Protestant] religious aura of the presidency . . . contributed in significant ways to its secularization.”

But t comes with a warning:

The vocation of Christians in American public life does not have a Baptist or Catholic or Greek Orthodox or any other brand-specific label.  John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me” – which is so key to the identity of Houston Baptist University, burns just as hot in this heart, and the heart of every Catholic who truly understands his faith.  Our job is to love God, preach Jesus Christ, serve and defend God’s people, and sanctify the world as his agents.  To do that work, we need to be one.  Not “one” in pious words or good intentions, but really one, perfectly one, in mind and heart and action, as Christ intended.  This is what Jesus meant when he said, “I do not pray for these only, but also those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn17:20-21).

We live in a country that was once – despite its sins and flaws — deeply shaped by Christian faith.  It can be so again.  But we will do that together, or we won’t do it at all.  We need to remember the words of St. Hilary from so long ago: Unum sunt, qui invicem sunt. “They are one, who are wholly for each other.”⁹ May God grant us the grace to love each other, support each other and live wholly for each other in Jesus Christ – so that we might work together in renewing the nation that has served human freedom so well.

Read the whole thing.

There Were Several Trial Balloons This Week…

Somebody, and I am pretty sure it is not Mitch Daniels, is trying to get Mitch Daniels to run.  He got a big mention from Mona Charen,  Ross Douthat mentioned him twice, even Ed Morrisey got into it.  This is too much to be idle speculation.  Someone is running a whisper campaign and trying to test the waters – maybe leverage Daniels into something.  My opinion, if someone is not interested in the job- let them be – the demands are simply too great for someone not to jump in wholeheartedly.

There is also talk of Jeb Bush.  I like Jeb, but he and Romney are pretty friendly and unlikely to go head-to-head.  Further, the leftie opposition to the name Bush needs a few ore years to loose its edge before Je would have a prayer.

Religion Under Fire…

This is kind of weird, but the bottom line is this – religious people are typically not so smart, and Roney is smart, which means, a) he is not that religious, and b) the religious people that pretty well control the right won’t vote for him.  Yep – it may be the most high-handed insult ever thrown my way.

Maggie Gallagher points out that thing really are getting out of hand:

New legislation now being proposed in the Massachusetts state legislature to ban circumcision of any male children, including Jewish children, comes very close to saying, “Yes, it should be a crime.” Circumcision of infant males has been a requirement of Jewish faith and identity since the time of Abraham.

Meanwhile, just a year ago this week, two very powerful state legislators in Connecticut proposed a bill that would have had the government take over the finances of the Catholic Church. (It took a rally drawing thousands of folks to the state capitol to persuade them to withdraw the measure.)

And in the UK, things are even worse:

Traditionalist bishops and peers fear that vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they turn down requests to hold civil partnerships on religious premises.

Their concerns have been raised following a landmark vote by peers that will allow the ceremonies for same-sex couples to be held in places of worship for the first time.

Which takes us back to Chaput’s speech.  If we do not unite, across religious boundaries, religion will simply be legislated out of existence.  My religion, your religion, their religion.  That’s where we stand.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Some guy in Utah thinks Evangelicals will still be a problem for Romney in 2012.  It is not exactly a penetrating analysis and up until this week I would have been dismissive – but now I begin to wonder.  We alluded to the issue on Friday, but further discussion makes it worthy of deeper examination.

A little background – Romney’s religion will not overtly be a problem from the right side of the aisle in 2012.  Huckabee was too harshly chastised after he tried in Iowa last time for that to ever happen again.  As an overt issue on the right it was abandoned by New Hampshire.  Of course, on the left, all religion is an overt issue, but we are here concentrating on the primaries and specifically on Evangelicals.

However, chastising a prejudice does not necessarily eliminate it – it just forces it underground and into diferent guises.  Last time the “Mormons lie” meme fed the “flip-flop” charge which made Romney “inauthentic.”  We see the inauthenticity thing discussed a lot even now.  In the last week, a new discussion has arisen that could also develop as a guise for anti-Mormon sentiment amongst Evangelicals.

It starts with the a piece by Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru in NRO last week on American Exceptionalism.

What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.

[...]

To find the roots of American exceptionalism, you have to start at the beginning — or even before the beginning. They go back to our mother country. Historian Alan Macfarlane argues that England never had a peasantry in the way that other European countries did, or as extensive an established church, or as powerful a monarchy. English society thus had a more individualistic cast than the rest of Europe, which was centralized, hierarchical, and feudal by comparison.

It was, to simplify, the most individualistic elements of En­glish society — basically, dissenting low-church Protestants — who came to the eastern seaboard of North America. And the most liberal fringe of English political thought, the anti-court “country” Whigs and republican theorists such as James Harrington, came to predominate here. All of this made Amer­ica an outlier compared with England, which was an outlier compared with Europe. The U.S. was the spawn of English liberalism, fated to carry it out to its logical conclusion and become the most liberal polity ever known to man.

America was blessedly unencumbered by an ancien régime. Compared with Europe, it had no church hierarchy, no aristocracy, no entrenched economic interests, no ingrained distaste for commercial activity. It almost entirely lacked the hallmarks of a traditional post-feudal agrarian society. It was as close as you could get to John Locke’s state of nature. It was ruled from England, but lightly; Edmund Burke famously described English rule here as “salutary neglect.” Even before the Rev­olution, America was the freest country on earth.

These endowments made it possible for the Americans to have a revolution with an extraordinary element of continuity. Tocqueville may have been exaggerating when he said that Americans were able to enjoy the benefits of a revolution without really having one, but he wasn’t far off the mark. The remnants of old Europe that did exist here — state-supported churches, primogeniture, etc. — were quickly wiped out. Amer­icans took inherited English liberties, extended them, and made them into a creed open to all.

Exact renderings of the creed differ, but the basic outlines are clear enough. The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.

Good stuff this, so why is it problematic?  Well, first of all, I have to guess (we do not have pre-publication copies) that Mitt Romney’s soon to be released book, No Apology: The Case For American Greatness, is going to – with a title like that – in some way address similar ideas.  Secondly, our nation holds a very special place in Mormon thought, philosophy, and even theology.  Finally, since Lowry and Ponnuru’s piece, a number of leading Evangelical bloggers have been pointing out that American Exceptionalism is not a “Christian” ideal.

Matt Anderson objects to them “borrowing” religious language:

I am occasionally asked by folks how to help young evangelicals understand and sympathize with conservative political ideology.

Here’s a hint:

Don’t steal religious language to make the case for American exceptionalism, as Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru unfortunately do.

Ponnuru and Lowry’s piece is a tremendous example of the sort of one-eyed shut conservatism that has disenchanted many of my peers.  Their’s is a defense of the American creed, which they describe as a blend of “liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics.”

Samuel Goldman finds them imprecise:

But the most serious problem is conceptual. Lowry and Ponnuru don’t distinguish between two ideas, one of which can be called American exceptionalism, the other American exclusivism.

Doug Wilson finds the idea idolatrous:

American exceptionalism is objectionable because it is a false religion, a false faith. It is a smooth and attractive idol, and probably the idol most likely to ensnare conservative evangelicals.

Boy there is a lot of semantics going on here – and a lot of semantic territoriality.  That is troubling, we are so busy arguing words and their meanings, and who gets to decide their meanings, that we are losing the central idea.  This is very reflective of the common debate, theologically, between Evangelicals and Mormons.  Given that, one has to wonder if this debate will not continue in force when Romney’s book is in general release in a couple of weeks.

It is important in these types of situations to focus on the central ideas on which we can all agree, so that is what I am going to do here.  First of all, everyone understands that we can hold our nation in front of our God and that such is idolatrous.  The Mormons I know, even with their deep faith in the special place America has in history as ordained by God, know that America is NOT God.  Any person of faith must guard against idolatry of all sorts, and this sort is no exception.

So what are the essential ideas that we can focus on and can agree upon?  Well, first of all, it cannot be denied that the Unites States of America is the most successful nation-state in history.  We have grown faster and larger than any other.  It cannot be denied that while imperfect, we have done more good for our citizenry and the world than any prior nation-state.  It is also inarguable that the varied religious nature of our citizenry is, to some extent, responsible for that latter fact.

It also cannot be denied that religion, and especially Christianity, has flourished in American like no place else on earth – and like no other religion in history – as matter of choice and free practice.

For Evangelicals, and those like us, who believe that God acts in history, we must conclude that God, to some extent, has ordained this special place in history that America has obtained.  This is a matter of reason.  It is fair for Evangelicals to say that American Exceptionalism is not biblical (and here the different canons of Orthodox and Mormon Christians is very important), but to say it is ungodly is to deny history and that God acts in it.  We can no more deny the exceptional nature of this nation than we can deny that the earth rotates around the sun (but then we did try to do that for a while as well.)

So argue the precise formulations of the statements if you will, but let us not lose focus on what really matters.  America is unique in history.  It will not last forever, but it is destined to have influence far beyond its existence.  Only Israel and the Roman Empire can claim the kind of historical significance that the United States is likely to claim when it is all said and done.  That uniqueness is worthy of our defense, and it is defending it that should unite us.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Political Strategy, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Starting With Our Friend Mike Huckabee . . .

The Huckster was typically petulant about his non-appearance at CPAC last weekend.   Of course, such a  “rift” among Republicans is cause for a story from the press.  Which leads me to this bit by James Lewis at “American Thinker:”

See a pattern? If they can’t win honestly, the Left is happy to split the conservative vote by hook or by crook. They do it all the time.

Which leads me to wonder whose side the Huckster is on anyway?  And while we are discussing Huck it seems that he was in Iowa this week, and according to the Des Moines Register, “shows no signs of running for president.“  The picture at left here is what appeared with the piece.  It put me in mind of the oft-repeated quote from Haley Barbour at CPAC last weekend, “If you see me lose 40 pounds, you’ll know I’m running for president….”

I’d say the Register is dead nuts on with that one.

The Book Tour Begins . . .

Actually not.  The tour for No Apology does not officially kick off until 3/13 in SLC, but the pre-release copies are out and the discussion is getting hot and heavy.  Not to mention, Romney is on Letterman next week.  The discussion of the week concerned Romney’s assertion in the book that the White House is “calling shots” at GM.   I thought this NRO “Planet Gore” post took care of that pretty readily.

One more thing before we leave Romney:  Was the rapper/plane incident pivotal?  My thought is that if you are the kind of person that thinks TMZ is “news” then maybe, but if you are someone that actually pays attention to things like issues, probably not.

The Others . . .

Thoughts on Mitch Daniels.  Interesting – good stuff, but I’m telling you, if Daniels runs this time it will be with a gun to his head.  Not a winning formula.

Palin continues to poll.

Read this and remember.  Marc Ambinder, while very smart, is a leftie with a vested interest in stirring the Republican pot.

Our best sources tell us Thune is in, so this is more than “buzz.”

Religion and Politics . . .

There was a conference between Catholics and Mormons this week at BYU.  Here’s the Deseret News coverage and the audio and video is here.

“In recent years, Catholics and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have stood more frequently side by side in the public square to defend human life and dignity,” Cardinal Francis George told nearly 12,000 students, faculty and community members gathered Tuesday at BYU.

“I’m personally grateful that after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see each other as trustworthy partners in defense of shared moral principles.”

You know, Evangelicals might find themselves on the outside looking in when it comes to political activism when solid alliances like this get built.

According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, secularism is not all it’s cracked up to be.

American foreign policy is handicapped by a narrow, ill-informed and “uncompromising Western secularism” that feeds religious extremism, threatens traditional cultures and fails to encourage religious groups that promote peace and human rights, according to a two-year study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

The council’s 32-member task force, which included former government officials and scholars representing all major faiths, delivered its report to the White House on Tuesday. The report warns of a serious “capabilities gap” and recommends that President Obama make religion “an integral part of our foreign policy.”

And note that religion generally, NOT religion specifically, is what matters.  Because tying religion and politics too tightly is not good for religion either.  It is interesting that in the UK, conservatives are suspicious of religious influence.  (HT: Ross Douthat)

That also seems to be a concern among younger Evangelicals in this country.  My friend Matt Anderson thinks the problem is the appropriation of religious language for discussing American exceptionalism.  I think such a mixture of language is unavoidable.  It’s where the whole problem we look at on this blog arises.  For the average American politics, patriotism, and religion are matters to a great extent of faith.  Most people, through lack of interest or capability simply do not understand how the nation works, anymore than they understand how church works. They approach both in much the same fashion.  That language would bleed from one to the other is almost unavoidable.

The difference lies in the fact that church really is an institution of faith, while government is an institution of immense practicality.  As long as we have to convince people to vote one way or the other, we will borrow the tools of religion which is also in the convincing business.   The question is how to motivate people to learn more how their government works.  But then that’s a problem the church has as well.

Lowell adds . . .

Mike Huckabee’s weight is not something we bring up to poke fun. It’s simply an indication that he probably isn’t running in 2012, unless we see a rapid and dramatic weight loss. In addition to the photo John posts above, take a look at the video clip here. That’s a far different Huck than the one we saw jogging with reporters back in 2007.

As for interfaith alliances, it will be interesting to see if Mormons and Evangelicals can openly join forces on matters of joint interest the way Mormons and Catholics are doing that. A lot of progress in that direction was made in California’s Prop 8 election, but the uneasiness remains. That’s a subject for another post, I think. Maybe for a book!

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Political Strategy, Proposition 8, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post