The Blowback from Charles Blow; and Marco Rubio — the Mormon?
Charles Blow: Mitt’s Reaction
It so happened that Mitt Romney was on Hugh Hewitt’s show today, and Hugh asked Romney almost immediately about Charles Blow’s comment (detailed in our post just below).
HH: Governor, I’ve got to start with something that’s mildly distasteful. Last night during the debate New York Times columnist Charles Blow tweeted this: “Let me just tell you this Mitt ‘Muddle Mouth’: I’m a single parent and my kids are *amazing*! Stick that in your magic underwear.” Now, I know you’re not surprised about hostility from the New York Times, and I know you’re not surprised by anti-Mormon bigotry, but are you surprised by anti-Mormon bigotry in a New York Times columnists’s tweets?
MR: That is a little surprising, I must admit. I guess we’re finding out for the first time that the media is somewhat biased. (Laughs.)
HH: But do you expect — a lot of people worry that if you’re the nominee, and increasingly it looks like you will be, that the Obama campaign, operating with the mainstream media, will unleash a lot of anti-LDS stuff on you. How are you preparing for that, Governor?
MR: You know, I don’t think that will be particularly helpful for their cause. The truth of the matter is, they’ve got a lot of ways to attack our nominee. They’re going to make their attacks on a personal basis. They really have a hard time defending President Obama on the basis of his economic record, on the basis of his foreign policy record — particularly given the developments in Iran as well as his mismanagement of Iraq and Afghanistan. So they’re going to make personal attacks. I think it’s going to wear very badly and the American people are not going to line up for that kind of, if you will, divisiveness and demonization of their fellow Americans.
Hugh will have the full transcript of the interview here a little later tonight.
I have heard some express disappointment in the Governor’s response. To me it seems that he was (a) surprised at the sophomoric, vulgar nature of the tweet — this appeared to be the first Mitt had heard of it — and (b) reluctant to give the appearance of whining about the attack. As a Mormon, I can say that when it comes to jokes about our religious garments, rolling our eyes and dismissing the subject are almost habitual responses. It’s hard to justify dignifying the joke with a response. (What would you do if someone started joking in public about your underwear?) Besides, for years now Romney has almost always avoided responding directly to religious attacks on him, leaving that task to surrogates. I think that’s what he was doing here.
As of 9:30 p.m. EST today, the New York Times had not responded to inquiries about Blow’s tweet.
Marco Rubio’s Mormon Past
The big Article VI news of the day is that Marco Rubio became a Mormon as a boy, but drifted away from active membership beginning at about age 13. Unless he asked to be removed from the church’s rolls, he is probably still listed as a member.
No, I am not making this up. No one could make it up. Buzzfeed’s McKay Coppins broke the story. Ben Smith later commented:
BuzzFeed’s report this morning that Marco Rubio was baptized and raised for a time as a Mormon produced a quick reaction — that Mitt Romney now can’t choose him as vice president — and a quick revulsion at that conclusion, which just doesn’t seem fair.
“The revelation … muddies the prospects of Rubio’s getting the VP nod from Romney,” wrote ABC’s Matt Negrin. “Though many conservatives love Rubio — he overwhelmingly won a straw poll for vice presidential nominee at an annual gathering of conservatives in Washington this month — the bottom of the ticket is often used for balancing a variety of attributes.”
“I have to think it’s actually disqualifying,” lamented the conservative blogger Ace of Spades. “And I like Rubio. I’ve been saying for two years that we don’t know who the presidential candidate will be but we know exactly who the vice presidential candidate will be. Alas. Not that it’s a crime. Just that it precludes one particularly-strong ticket. Probably our strongest.”
Hugh Hewitt tweeted in response:
not remotely a reason not to pick Rubio “@BuzzFeedBen: My take on Rubio having been a mormon: Politics isn’t fair http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/does-it-matter-that-rubio-was-a-mormon”
There’s much to say about this. For now we want to get the Romney comment posted and join the discussion.
Posted in News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 4 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Lee Allred on 24 Feb 2012 at 6:21 am #
Imagine the outrage if Charles Blow had tweeted somehing like this:
“Let me just tell you this, Mahmoud ‘Mush Mouth’ Ahmadinejad. I’m a Western infidel and my freedoms are ‘amazing’! Stick that in your turban.”
He’d be fired so fast, the cardboard box with this desk belongings would catch on fire from the air friction.
At the NYT Islomophobia’s a no-no, Mormophobia’s a yes-yes.
JLF9999 on 24 Feb 2012 at 7:49 am #
One intersting thing about LDS theology and Catholicism, not often shared by other traditions, is how similar the two are in some fundamental ways. For instance, the LDS belief and practice of Baptism for the Dead fits quite comfortably with the Catholic practice of praying the dead out of purgatory. The theology is different but the intent is the same – give the deceased an opportunity at redemption that otherwise, according to other tradtions, condemns the unredeamed into perpetual hell.
Another is authoritative clothing. Catholic priests with their vestments and Mormons with temple clothing.
Another is the belief that only authorized men can perform rites and ordinances and that no man takes this authority on himself. It must be given them by others who have the authority to so.
Another is the belief that both arise directly from first century Christianity. According to Catholic belief Catholicism came from Christ through Peter. LDS theology says Christ’s authority was restored directly by Peter, James, and John who laid their hands on Joseph Smith Jr and Oliver Cowdry to recieve the Melchizadek priesthood, ergo, no man took it upon himself. Both men recieved the Aaronic priesthood by John The Baptist in the same manner.
The sexual wisdom of Charles Blow | Conservative Republicans of California on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:50 am #
[...] Mitt Romney responded to Blow’s ugly bigotry with graceful good humor on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, as reported by Lowell Brown at the Article VI Blog: [...]
coltakashi on 25 Feb 2012 at 1:55 am #
Senator Rubio was oresumably baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not recognize any baptismal ordinance as valid unless performed by someone ordained as a priest or elder in the CJCLDS. The Catholic Church does not recognize a CJCLDS baptism as valid. Each church regards Rubio as having fulfilled the basic requirements for membership in its own body of believers. So it is up to Rubio himself which of those two denominations he wants to identify with. Neither church and its respective ordinances define him against his will. HE decides.
This example should be remembered whenever Jews or Catholics complain about Mormons performing a vicarious baptism for a deceased Catholic or Jew. If a vicarious baptism is performed on behalf of a Mormon’s own family member, the validity of the ordinance still depends on the personal choice of the person named in the ordinance. Mormons do not WANT to convert anyone against his will. That is one reason why Mormons believe in believer’s baptism, and do not baptize infants.
I recognize that one of the sad facts of history was that at times in the past, Jewish children were taken from their parents and baptized by Catholic priests, including at the time of the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 who refused to convert to Catholicism, and during World War II when children were baptized in order to save them from the Holocaust, but were not returned to their Jewish families. Mormons are offended at the presumption that any church would dare to preempt the natural love and care of parents for their children. Mormons will not baptize any living person without parental consent, until the person reaches adulthood.
By the same token, Mormons don’t believe any faith community “owns” the soul of an adult, whether the person is alive or dead. Mormons believe every person is free to choose which religious commitments he or she will make. Some living Jews choose to join the CJCLDS and that bothers many of their fellow Jews. The wife of Senator Harry Reid was Jewish when they married. Some Jews resent the idea that some people who lived and died as Jews might choose, as conscious souls after death, to become not just Christian, but Mormon Christians. But they do not “own” such convert souls, the souls own themselves.
Some people think that no religious group has a right to proselyte other people to their faith. That view us adopted into law in many nations, including China, many Muslim-dominated nations, and Israel. The Mormons, unlike some other Christian churches, feel obligated to obey such laws, to the point of forbidding Mormon students studying at the BYU branch campus in Jerusalem from talking to ANYONE about their church. However, Mormons believe that true religious freedom includes the right to try to persuade others to voluntarily join one’s own faith, whatever that may be. Mormons believe that vicarious baptisms performed on behalf of their family members is a part of the freedom to proselyte. Mormons don’t force anyone into accepting baptism, and vicarious baptisms can not do so.
The fact that Senator Rubio may still have a valid baptism in CJCLDS records does not mean the Mormons “own” him or any other recorded member. The Mormons are a church of volunteers, in all senses of that word. Rubio could ask to have his membership cancelled, and it would be done. Rubio could decide to become an active participant in the CJCLDS community, and the Mormons would welcome him. It is his choice, just as it is for the deceased relatives of Mormons for whom vicarious baptism has been performed who may ratify the ordinance, or not, as their own choice.