Apologies!?, The Battle Of Flyover Country, Obama Talks Religion, and more….
Apologies…
I have no idea how this will play out, and as the non-Mormon on this blog to some extent it is none of my business, but last week one of the Mormon elders “apologized” to some pro-gays in Oakland:
There was sobbing. There were tears. Elder Jensen also shed tears as he listened and took notes to share with other General Authorities back in Salt Lake City. At the conclusion of the hour, he apologized for the pain he was witnessing.
According to attendee Carol Lynn Pearson, a Mormon author and long-time advocate of LGBT concerns, Elder Jensen said, “To the full extent of my capacity, I say that I am sorry . . . I know that many very good people have been deeply hurt, and I know that the Lord expects better of us.”
It is made clear by every one I have read on this that it is NOT and apology for Prop 8 or for Mormon doctrine on homosexuality, but rather an apology for the pain felt. Said Mark Silk, with whom I rarely agree:
The Battle of The ‘Flyover” States
Well of course he could, he is from right next door! But it set me to thinking. There are going to be some regional battles this time. You will have Thune and Pawlenty scrapping over Iowa since both are neighbors there. Thune has been making a lot of news lately doing big time interviews that have everybody talking. Then there is the battle for the Hoosier state between Mike Pence and Mitch Daniels. David Brooks talked about the later in a throw away comment this week that drew all sorts of reaction. First see the link on Daniels name and then see this ‘First Thoughts’ take down.
All four of these men – Thune, Pawlenty, Daniels and Pence have made significant contributions on the national scene, but they are primarily regional figures. Everyone I know in the old home state of Indiana is talking about Daniels and Pence. But the same myopathy that we often accuse coastal folks of having when it comes to the so-called flyover states applies to midwesterners as well. They often just cannot see that what plays in Indiana or Iowa or Minnesota or South Dakota simply will not play in California or New York or Florida.
But what is really going on here is the press wanting to set up social issues as the driver for an election that must be run on first economic issues and secondly national security. The buzz on these guys is largely on social issues which will begin and end in Iowa this cycle. Daniels handling of the Indiana budget gives him some fiscal edge and Thune’s unseating of Daschle makes him a shrewd political operator. But only time will tell if they have what it takes to break out of the midwest and make real national impact here. In the meantime just remember that everything you are reading and hearing in the MSM wants to create the appearance of a knockdown drag out in the Republican party – a gap through which Obama can run. Not very likely given the shambles to which he has driven this nation in two short years.
The President’s Faith…
Obama says he is a “Christian by choice.” Some question his sincerity, some the politics. The latter wonders at his religious literacy given that the nation as a whole, while Christian is pretty religiously illiterate.
The whole thing, which happened in an “innocent” Q&A, strikes me as having been set-up to allow his majesty, er…President Obama, to respond to the “he’s a Muslim” rumors.
I pray for the man daily, but I would remind all of us that Christianity is not merely a set of ideas to which we grant ascent – it is a relationship with the living God, who seeks to place us back into His image in which we were originally created but from which we have fallen.
Romney News…
He went to New Hampshire. That’s where things get serious. He is taking flack though. This hurts a little. This is just silly – sometimes lefties really need a life.
And old Bush hand said this this week in an interesting piece on religion in the 2010 midterms:
Today, we find evangelical Protestants as the core religious group supporting the Republican Party, joined by their Mormon allies, while a heterogeneous coalition of highly religious blacks and Hispanics, Jews, and an increasingly vocal group of seculars make up the Democrat camp.
There’s an alliance I would like to see strengthened! The problem last time was we were allied against the enemy, but not internally – we battled for power inside the party. This time we really need to set that aside and get the job done – there is too much at risk.
Parting Words…
Both Christianity and Islam are animated by the conviction that their truths are universal. Both want to realize this universality in and through evangelization, which involves the transformation of culture. Both face the temptation to conscript the power of the modern state to achieve this goal. A commitment to religious freedom blocks this temptation. It redirects the ambitions of the evangelist toward their proper object: the heart and mind of the human person, and fittingly so, for it is the place where culture percolates.
I’d say that applies to Evangelicals and Mormons as well.
Posted in Reading List | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Tweets that mention Apologies!?, The Battle Of Flyover Country, Obama Talks Religion, and more…. | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder -- Topsy.com on 04 Oct 2010 at 7:09 am #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mitt Romney in 2012!, Article VI Blog. Article VI Blog said: Apologies!?, The Battle Of Flyover Country, Obama Talks Religion, and more….: Apologies… I have no idea how this w… http://bit.ly/boPMvh [...]
coltakashi on 04 Oct 2010 at 4:17 pm #
I commented on Mark Silk’s piece:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does NOT control Mitt Romney, Robert Bennett or Harry Reid in the decisions those men make on whether to run for election or what policies they pursue when in office. The candidates who defeated Bob Bennett are–surprise!–other Mormons! Your claim that Gordon B. Hinckley was more adroit at controlling the public perception of Mormons is a backhanded compliment, that assumes facts not in evidence. The church makes very clear to BOTH candidates and its members that it is NOT involved in partisan politics. That is even more true in a world where over 50% of Mormons aren’t even living in the US!
“Besides, your timing is off–Gordon B. Hinckley was president of the LDS Church until recently, at a time when Romney ran in the primaries, when Reid was already majority leader in the Senate after the 1996 elections, and Beck was already prominent in the media.
“The Church leadership does not control Glenn Beck or his political views, any more than it controls Harry Reid and his (very different) political views.
“Brother Jensen was in Oakland for the purpose of presiding at a regularly scheduled meeting called a ‘stake conference’, in which a group of local congregations who share buildings and regional leadership meet together to hear sermons from their leadership and to acknowledge decisions at that level, such as realignments of congregational boundaries to create a new congregation, and the calling of new (volunteer) regional leaders. His meeting with the LDS members and families who have gay members was an addition to the normal agenda, clearly for the purpose of showing that love for fellow disciples that is the hallmark of being disciples of Christ (see John 14-17). It was not a news conference or a meeting with gay rights organizations, but with people who have a spiritual and emotional investment in the LDS church. His was an expression of a church that shows up to care for its members when they have financial and emotional and medical distress, even if it is due to AIDS.
“It is really no different than the very vocal position the LDS Church took in Salt Lake city to SUPPORT a city ordinance banning housing and jobs discrimination against gays, at a time when it is beginning to offer for sale and rent hundreds of new apartments in a new downtown development that is on Church-owned land.”
The LDS church is not concerned about being perceived as “weak”. It is concerned about being true to its understanding of what God expects of us. That includes standing up for sexual morality when it is unpopular among many, as well as acting with compassion for people who strongly disagree with its stand. This may confuse people who want to enlist the LDS church as a political juggernaut, but all of those actions–including Elder Jensen’s statements–are expressions of the LDS Church teaching that high moral standards should be upheld, while still loving the sinner–even though most homosexuals are taught by their movement to not accept that label, to be consistent and strong, to never give an inch. For the LDS church, Proposition 8 was NOT about coercing gay people, but about avoiding the coercion under California law of those who believe in traditional marriage between a man and woman. The gay backlash to the popular vote in California, still ongoing, demonstrates the tyrranical program of those who want to use gay marriage as a bludgeon to coerce churches into submission and silence.
bramarwa on 05 Oct 2010 at 7:04 pm #
The piece by Joanna Brooks is disappointing. It is obviously addressed to people who do not understand the CJCLDS or its position regarding homosexuality and Proposition 8. The article’s premise is that the Church’s stance and Proposition 8 is based on hate towards gays and lesbians. That stereotype is false, but it obviously gained enough traction to win in the federal district court, so I do not completely fault her for advancing such arguments here.
What I do not like is that she takes that false premise and tries to mislead her naive readers. The quote from Elder Jensen was, “To the full extent of my capacity, I say that I am sorry… I know that many very good people have been deeply hurt, and I know that the Lord expects better of us.” The quote does not mention Proposition 8 or its legacy. I was not at the meeting, and the article does a poor job of reporting the various items discussed, but what I believe Elder Jensen was referring to was the need for members of the CJCLDS to discuss such topics with more civility and sensitivity. The “love the sinner, hate the sin” mentality. Elder Jensen is not apologizing for the Church’s position, as he does not have the authority to do such. He is, however, being an example of how to reach out and apologize for stupid and truly hurtful things we often say and do toward others in the heat of the moment, even when we are justified in condemning their immoral acts. Such an interpretation of his statement would be in-line with a talk he gave that was recently published, called “Those Who Are Different,” which can be accessed here: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ebad1db6dca1a210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Brooks further attempts to portray the Church’s leadership as admitting wrong and backtracking by discussing Elder Oaks’s recent remarks on the constitution. She ignores the context of those remarks. Oaks pointed out that the event was sponsored by the University of Utah, was in a community setting, and not sponsored by the Church. He then went on to discuss constitutional principles in a more secular manner. He did not, however, disavow his prior stances. In fact, he in many instances affirmed them.
The only reason for Brooks to spin these statements by two Church leaders, as to suggest “a subtle shift” in the Church’s position, is to misinform others in the hope that the readers will shift their own opinions. This is journalism at its worst.
All The News That’s Fit To Spend Electrons Upon, Early… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 08 Oct 2010 at 2:13 pm #
[...] Comments bramarwa on Apologies!?, The Battle Of Flyover Country, Obama Talks Religion, and more….coltakashi on Apologies!?, The Battle Of Flyover Country, Obama Talks Religion, and [...]
kgbudge on 08 Oct 2010 at 11:01 pm #
Not necessarily. Given the extraordinary ignorance some reporters display on religious matters, it’s possible Brooks really is thick enough to think this is accurate reporting. Robert Heinlein had some good advice: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.