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!

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

While there has been a plethora of books by former candidates (Huckabee, Palin, Obama), each has been about themselves. In many cases (especially in Huckabee’s case), it was a way to settle perceived slights.

However, here is real leadership. Romney is looking beyond the mark into what is best for this nation.

There is some interesting media thought there.  The personal actually “sells” in this day and age.  Our current president is the king of “I” – people do not always know how to relate to the kind of service and leadership that Romney demonstrates here.  My impression is that the nation is quickly returning to more solid underpinnings as we learn the lessons the hard way, but it will be an interesting contrast as we move forward.

As an example of his service mentality, Romney is going to raise money for John Thune’s 2010 Senate run.   Thune is quickly joining Pawlenty as the other serious alternative to Romney for the GOP presidential nomination in ‘12 – and yet Romney is going to help him.  The man is obviously far more interested in getting done what needs to be done than advancing his own possible candidacy.

And before we get to Mormons, we need to look briefly at Evangelicals.  Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, who should be in one of the most secure seats in the nation, finds himself being challenged in the next election.  His opponent:

Coats was a key behind-the-scenes force in convincing John McCain to take Sarah Palin seriously as a vice presidential candidate. He was a member of “The Family,” a close-knit group of rigorously evangelical Christians who run, among things, the now well-known C Street rooming house in Washington, D.C. He also lobbied on behalf of Roache Diagnostics during the health battle reform battle.

It will be interesting to keep an eye on this campaign in the ‘10 cycle and see how the religious angle plays.  It could tell us a lot about religion, Romney and ‘12.

And this is unbecoming.  I am no fan of Obama or his agenda, but the seriousness of his faith is between him and his God.  Technically, this is about his Office on Faith, but the headline and lead are a little too attention grabbing.

Utah . . .

. . . is  still in the running for the 2012 GOP convention.  Says Jay Evenson of the Deseret News:

Maybe Mitt Romney will be the nominee in 2012. If so, does he want to deliver an acceptance speech in a venue that would draw more attention to his Mormon faith than his leadership abilities? The Salt Lake area is gorgeous and has much to offer, but it offers absolutely nothing politically for the GOP, which already owns this state.

It has got to be hard to be Romney right now.  He has done so much for the SLC area with the Olympics and these conventions bring big money into an area, but he must at least want to lobby against this because Evenson is absolutely right – from Romney’s perspective, the convention should be anywhere but Utah.

Mormons . . .

Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke at BYU-Idaho last weekend.  Seems like that is the selected venue for Mormon Elders to go to make bold statements.   I am not sure this time went as well as last time.  Quoth Ballard:

“You remember Mr. (Mike) Huckabee (who was also vying to be the Republican candidate for president), who among other things said that Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil were brothers?” Ballard asked students. “Remember that? It went all over the media.”

“Well they are!” Ballard exclaimed to a laughing student body.

“But they (the media and nonmembers) don’t understand that, because they don’t have the (LDS gospel) restoration. They don’t understand the spiritual relationship that … we are all sons and daughters of God, and that Lucifer was one of those and (that) he chose to use his agency in an unrighteous way.”

Declaring the Mormon belief is fine, but tying it to Huckabee makes it a problem for Romney – particularly that way.

There is a school of thought, one I basically agree with, that Romney should not worry about being called “Christian” – he should just acknowledge that the LDS faith is quite different from traditional Christianity and move on from there.  I know how difficult that is given the Mormon conviction that it is Christianity restored, but politically, it’s a loser discussion.  For Elder Ballard to point out that Mormons believe very differently from others is a proper move in that direction.  But to do so while acknowledging one particular Mormon belief – even with the proper explanation – that most traditional Christians would find very troubling does not help at all.

In this internet age, even this obscure story from a local paper gets picked up and spread widely.  Mormons are free to believe whatever they want, but they need to work on media management if they want one of their own to occupy the highest office in the land.  After all, W, or his pastor, did not spend any time explaining how the media does not really know what they believe.  They just let it go, even though they were grossly misrepresented in the press any number of times.  Do the job, worship in church, allow your worship to make you a better person and do your job better and leave it at that.  Anything else is picking a fight – in this case a fight that Mormons can only lose.

Lowell adds . . .

I don’t have too much to add, except to note that Mormon belief about Satan’s origins is not that different from the commonly-held Christian notion that Satan (Lucifer) is a “fallen angel.” But that gets into religious doctrine and we do not want to go there – and neither should the news media or any political candidate.

By the way, I heard today that Marco Rubio is outpolling Charlie Crist in Florida in the race for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination there.  It is not hard at all to imagine Mr. Rubio as the next senator from Florida.  Let me be the first to predict the 2012 GOP ticket:  Romney-Rubio!  Isn’t speculation fun?

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Huck v Palin

Remember last week when we brought up a press release from one of the right-to-life groups assailing Palin’s pro-life bona fides?  Well, a blogger has identified the RTL group as Huck hawks.  And, when questioned, he got more evidence.  Prior to press time here, a debate over this question had broken out at another site -  examples here and here.

There is a bottom line to all this – there may be no direct connection between Huckabee and those bad actors, or there may be, I have no idea – but Huckabee has relied upon and encouraged through a lack of admonition the tactics, slanders and viciousness of these groups.  As is pointed out above, his website links to them.  Like the comments on his old campaign site, it is what Huckabee does not do that is at issue here.

Consider this:  Our current president has no direct ties to the Code Pink, Daily Kos wacko wing of the left.  But, during the campaign, he never chided them and their over-the-top antics either – he talked about bridges and “reaching out.”  Now he governs like he is from them, almost directly.

Huckabee needs to repudiate these kinds of tactics if they are done on his behalf.  It is a matter of simple decency.

The Left Cannot Take A Joke

Admittedly, it is a joke that is in less than good taste, even if it does produce an initial chortle, but people like this really need to relax a little.  In case you don’t know what I am referring to, look up Psalm 109:8 and think Obama.  What is truly bothersome is that the left used rhetoric regarding Bush that was far more pointed and “threatening” than what they are all exercised about here.

Political rhetoric has gotten out of hand, and civility is called for, but the left is clearly setting up for censorship here.  They really need to get over themselves.

Giuliani . . .

. . . Looks like he is going to run for Senate, not Governor of NY.  That’s great news, it puts the Dems in Congress on notice that they are making themselves vulnerable with their current actions, not to mention Rudy would make a fine Senator.

However, this has led to a bunch of speculation that:

Giuliani could use a Senate seat as a stepping stone to run for President in 2012 – rather than run for re-election to the Senate.

Nah!  He blew it too badly last time.  Not to mention it was a self-inflicted wound.  Voters don’t usually give a second chance after something like that.

But Really, It Has Continued To Be All Palin All The Time

CNN looks at the question of whether she is after office or just making money.  That’s the right question to ask, but for the record, there is nothing wrong with making money – unless she sucks all the air out of the room for the serious politicians.  No danger of that yet, it’s too early.

Politico reports on the fact that the Republican Governor’s Association is in a bit of a quandary about what she’s up to and how to react to her.   CNN looked at the same thing, with a tighter focus on the recent gubernatorial races.

Chris Cillizza did the number of Palin’s book tours.  He points out that even if she is just after a career, she is doing reasonable politics.

Of course, people also used the Palin blitz as an excuse to look even deeper.  Cal Thomas thinks she needs to study up a little, but that she has some formidable skills, and wonders what those skills portend for the future of the GOP.

And Rod Dreher thinks most of us just do not get it – Palin or anyone else.  But then that is Dreher, and a significant bunch of younger religious conservatives.

And before we leave the 2012 hopefuls completely behind us, our favorite wrote a great op-ed last week.

But Speaking Of The Future Of The GOP:

A recent survey shows:

. . . most Republicans would rather see candidates who would have a poor chance of winning election as long as they agree with them on issues.

That’s a huge problem if it holds.  One cannot build a coalition that way, and coalitions are how we win; how either party wins.  I am ashamed to say this, but much of the blame for that lies with Evangelicals.  In our community, as this blog’s audience knows, doctrine defines faith, doctrine defines what it means to be “a Christian.”  Therefore, doctrine must define politics as well – at least that’s how the thinking goes.  When you combine that with the fear that as Christians we are being victimized (see Cal Thomas above for more on this – it’s good stuff) and you can see the desire for a sort of political martyrdom to emerge.

What’s sad is that such fails to realize that in America there is no need for martyrdom.  In America, our political process allows us to change things without such drastic measures.  It can be hard, hard work, but we can do it.  And as people of faith, we have a secret weapon – our faith is the best instrument available to change people’s minds if only we will use it as such.  You want to eliminate abortion – don’t worry about the law, worry about evangelism.  You convert enough people, and in America, the law will take care of itself.

And speaking of serious politics, consider this from CNN:

Representatives from some of the top 2008 GOP presidential campaigns gathered in Washington, D.C. Thursday to urge the Republican National Committee to lock in a 2012 primary calendar as early as possible to avoid the confusion that dogged the early stages of last year’s nomination contest. One campaign manager took his recommendations a step further and suggested ending the traditional first-in-the-nation statuses of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

An RNC panel headed by party chairman Michael Steele invited the campaigns to share their views as it considers numerous possible changes to the process the party will use to nominate a candidate to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

Something has to break here.  The ideological tendencies we just discussed are regionalized, and changing the primary schedule would reduce some of the regional influence and allow us to better build the coalition we need, regardless of who the candidate is.

Religion at “War”

As reported in the NY Times and the Washington Times:

More than 150 leaders across a spectrum of conservative Christianity on Friday released a 4,700-word document vowing civil disobedience if they are forced to take part in “anti-life acts” or bless gay marriages.

Called the “Manhattan Declaration,” the six-page, single-spaced document was drafted by Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton University professor Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic, and included a bevy of Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox bishops, archbishops and cardinals as signatories along with dozens of clergy and laity.

Archbishop of Washington Donald W. Wuerl is one of the signatories.

“Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required,” says the document which cited civil rights icon Martin Luther King and his willingness to go to jail for his beliefs.

This is to be applauded – this is not lying down and accepting martyrdom, like we looked at in the preceding section – this is using an effective political tool to change American politics.  It is also a particularly effective tool in this instance given the citation of its originator in the U.S. and our current President.  Note that it is also very specific.  This tactic has to be carefully targeted to be useful.

“War” In Religion

Phillip Yancey is a bit left for my taste, but this is good and it speaks for itself.

And here is a guy we need to interview on the whole Mormon question thing.

“War” on Religion

Australia and Scientology.  I have always thought Scientology was a business hiding behind religious tax exemption laws, but that is easy to say and very difficult to parse legally.  I find the belief/behavior distinction in this piece a great place to start, and it is one Mormons should be more than passingly familiar with.

Finally, more on “Christians caused the crash.“  Thankfully, I have not seen the story get much traction.

Some added thoughts from Lowell . . .

Well, Huck does seem to have a problem repudiating the unsavory acts and statements of his backers, which says much about both the man and many of his people.  About Huck, it says that he is . . . well, cowardly.  About his core followers, Huck’s “repudiation problem” shows that they are an unforgiving lot and he must toe the line or risk losing their ardent support. It doesn’t make the man seem very secure in his position at the head of that pack, does it? Then again, few politicians are.

As for Rudy, I think he’s a better executive than a legislator, but having him in the Senate means one less Democrat there, which is important when they have a 60-vote majority.

Sarah Palin:  What are we going to do with Governor Palin?  I think Dreher nails it:

[S]he is so far from being capable of being president of the United States it’s not even funny. I know, I know, this isn’t news, but you’d think that if there was anything more to her in terms of intellectual seriousness and judgment than we saw last fall, she’d have brought it out in a memoir she had most of a year to write with the help of a professional writer. But there’s no there there. I’m not saying she’s a bad person — I don’t believe she’s a bad person at all — but I am saying she’s not a credible national political leader.

I don’t mean to pile on.  Gov. Palin is an exciting, admirable and likable conservative politician.  The Left’s and the MSM’s reaction to her is primarily because of that, not because of faults in Palin.  She’s just not quite ready for prime time and probably won’t be.  As a Romney fan, I do hope he develops at least some of Palin’s ability to connect with an audience.

John links above to a Deseret News article about Noah Feldman’s speech at BYU last week.  I found these paragraphs, about how Romney’s religious challenge was different from John Kennedy’s in 1960, compelling:

. . . Feldman said Romney also had to address the issue of religion; however, because Romney wanted to appeal to values-based voters, he couldn’t, like JFK, say that religion was irrelevant in his public life.

Romney declared his belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God but declined to discuss his LDS religion further, saying it would be a violation of the Constitution, which prohibits a religious test for public service eligibility.

“The question (is) what alternatives (are there), either for Mitt Romney or for other politicians in the future who find themselves in a similar position of believing … that religion does matter in the public sphere?” Feldman asked.

One answer is to increase awareness and religious understanding by engaging in the study of comparative religion, Feldman said. Such study requires members of a religion to momentarily set aside their beliefs and look for common, uniting bonds among belief systems.

Although there may be some not ready or willing to do that, BYU and universities in general constitute an “unbelievable resource for generating conversation, and therefore generating certain kinds of change,” Feldman said. “People talking is crucial. So don’t wait. If you wait, it won’t happen.”

(Emphasis added.)  The bolded language above summarizes exactly what this humble blog has been trying to do for over 3.5 years.  We’ll keep at it.  And yes, there is an interview with Noah Feldman in our future.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

New Jersey is about corruption and rejection thereof.  Virginia gives us the best picture of Republican fortunes at the moment and NY-23 well, that’s what everybody is talking about.

Patrick Ruffini looks at strategic third party runs.  Analysis in a minute.

This guy thinks Romney blew it.  I am sure he is not alone, but I am also sure they are people that would not vote for Romney anyway.  Besides, Romney is looking really, really smart now that Hoffman lost.

Dan Gilgoff keeps wondering if Hoffman is all about a social conservative comeback.  Obviously not, at least in the sense that they won, but maybe in the sense that they will learn cooperation is more important than labels.

They are even wondering in Great Britain.

Rod Dreher thinks Republicans are going to turn hard, hard right.  Oops.

In terms of POTUS 2012, I don’t think these elections say much of anything – too much distance.  Clinton was hard left in the first year, saw results like this and turned moderate, got re-elected, no point counting those chickens.  I do think the hard left turn of the Obama administration has re-energized the right and the results are in evidence, but all this Hoffman/third party stuff is silly.  First of all, there was no primary up there, Hoffman should have been the Republican candidate.   Secondly, third party stuff plays on a local level, sometimes even state-wide (Jesse Ventura/Joe Lieberman) but nationally it just has never played.  Not even for political figures casting a shadow as big as Teddy Roosevelt.  As the results in NY-23 show, in-fighting between Republicans and “true” conservatives just weakens the coalition and makes room for the other side to win.

Last election’s losses were about in-fighting.  Third parties, social conservatives playing “See I told you so” games, and all this other nonsense will not help with that problem, in fact I am afraid it will exacerbate it.  In Monday’s entry in the Telling The Story series I said:

All these factors will exist in Campaign ‘12 as well, should Romney elect to run.  But this observer thinks their effects will be radically different, not because of any change in the people, but because three years of a radically left-wing administration and at least two years of a radically left wing Congress.  There is nothing like watching the opposition work to place things in proper perspective.

After being out of power for several years, the differences between Mormon and Evangelical theology will not be nearly so important. Should Obamacare become a reality, we will be far more concerned with turning back as much of it as we can as opposed to making sure Mormons do not gain a greater level of “cultural acceptance.”

That’s what yesterday’s results are about more than anything else.  The only exception to the rule was the one race where we fought with each other instead of the Democrats/left.  There is a deep, deep lesson in that, and one we will do well to remember going forward.

Speaking of Romney . . .

He did the Sunday shows last weekend – the video is top of our video widget on the left.  Take a peek.

Further, he is being “exonerated” over the ugly charges Ted Kennedy threw at him in the ‘94 Senate race.

Issues . . .

There was a marriage measure on the ballot in Washington state yesterday.  And there was a related court case.  Even George Will commented.  The case centers on releasing names that sign petitions for such ballot measures.  The constitution provides for secret ballots precisely to prevent intimidation, and after what we saw in the wake of Prop 8 that right needs to be reasserted and applied to petitions.

I had a fascinating thought while reading about this stuff.  I’m not a big gun guy, don’t own one, but have enjoyed shooting from time to time in my life.  But that said, I believe strongly in the right of people to own them.  My thought was that I wonder how willing activists would be to practice this kind of intimidating tactic if guns were more widely owned in the nation.  This stuff is just nasty and there is no place for it.

But what is truly amazing is while liberals want to intimidate votes, they also accuse us of hate speech.  The cognitive dissonance in that one has my head spinning in an Exorcist sort of way.

There was a symposium last weekend at BYU on Mormon political attitudes.  It sort of creeped me out.  I have no desire to see my Mormon friends get locked into the “A real Mormons votes…” kind of fights like have become so commonplace in Evangelical circles.

Speaking of Mormons, Orrin Hatch is backing provisions in the health care stuff to cover Christian Science faith healings.  I think this is wrong on a lot of levels.  Number one, it may be a healing effort, but its not medicine.  I think Christian Science adherents have the right to do as they will, but they should not take money for it.  Secondly, I think the average Evangelical thinks Christian Scientists are really nuts while Mormons are just weird.  Hatch is the current highest ranking Republican Mormon elected official in the federal government and the real jerks in Evangelical circles will use this to paint Mormons as nuts as Christian Scientists.  This is a real political loser.

Finally, speaking of creepy, look at this.

Lowell’s Added Ruminations

I don’t think Romney blew it in the Hoffman race.  Had he endorsed Hoffman, he would have looked like he was pandering (and I’m afraid Pawlenty and Palin were doing just that).  My guess is that the same guy who criticized Romney for not endorsing Hoffman would not have given him any credit for doing the opposite.  Romney struck the right tone by withholding his endorsement from Scozzafava.

Regarding that symposium at BYU,  I am not thrilled about the idea that Mormons have a “distinct set of political attitudes.”  I don’t think that’s true, and I hope BYU, the intellectual nerve center of the church, doesn’t perpetuate the idea by holding such symposia.

Maine also is voting on gay marriage, in a referendum that for the first time seeks to overturn a law sanctioning same-sex unions that was actually passed by a legislature.  The law was passed in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by opponents.

At this writing the Maine results are too close to call.  It will be interesting to see what happens, and what impact the ongoing battle over the issue will have in 2010 and especially in 2012.  Romney’s Mormonism, and his church’s notoriety in the gay marriage wars, may well play a role.  John adds at publication time: Maine overturned the law allowing same-sex marriage.  In Washington, the measure passed, but it is domestic partnerships, not marriage.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

So what is the controversy all about?

Elder Oaks is member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of te Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”). He’s also a lawyer, a former professor of law at the University of Chicago, past President of BYU, and a former member of the Utah Supreme Court.  He is a formidable legal and political thinker and a clear writer.   His speech, given to students at BYU-Idaho (a college owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or “the Church”), has a simple thesis:  There is a “battle” underway over “the meaning of religious freedom under the United States Constitution,” and that battle “is of eternal importance.” Nothing terribly surprising there, coming from a churchman.  The controversy has arisen from Elder Oaks’ comments about what is happening now in the arena of religious freedom in the USA:

Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly. (Emphasis added.)

Then Elder Oaks zeroed in on the problem of  “silencing religious voices in the public square” and in the process, used the Proposition 8 battle as an example.

In other words, he touched the “third rail” of the modern culture war:  gay marriage.   It’s important to note that Edler Oaks did not talk about gay marriage, only about the reaction to the active involvement of the Church and its members in supporting Proposition 8.  In other words, the Oaks speech was about religious freedom, but it somehow earned him designation as one of the”worst people in the world” by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.  (A badge of honor to some, I suppose.)

The Key Points of The Speech

So what did Elder Oaks say to incite such a venomous attack from the wild-swinging Olbermann?  Well, this:

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:

“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”

Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its [Prop 8] coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”

Still looking for a statement worthy of “worst people in the world” designation?  Maybe it was this:

[W]we must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. We are under command to love our neighbor (Luke 10:27), to forgive all men (Doctrine and Covenants 64:10), to do good to them who despitefully use us (Matthew 5:44) and to conduct our teaching in mildness and meekness (Doctrine and Covenants 38:41).

Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled. As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:12). And modern revelation commands us not to revile against revilers (Doctrine and Covenants 19:30).

Well, no, it probably wasn’t that.  Maybe it was this:

[W]e must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders. While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.

We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.

Uh-oh.  Now we are getting somewhere.  Elder Oaks seems to be about to decry the retaliation and intimidation that Prop 8 opponents employed against Mormons – and many others – who supported Prop 8.  I am talking about the publication of maps showing the homes of individuals who donated to the Yes on 8 campaign; boycotts of their businesses; identification of Mormons among the public lists of donors to the Yes campaign; and other admitted efforts at intimidating voters from exercising their Constitutional rights.

This is no joke, by the way.  I remember hearing Fred Karger, the leader of the charmingly named Californians Against Hate, say on the Al Rantel show (KABC radio, Los Angeles) that the reason donors were being identified and harassed was to make sure they thought twice about donating the next time there is an election about same-sex marriage.

These two paragraphs are probably the most controversial of Elder Oaks’ speech:

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

(Emphasis added.)  The bolded language seems to have driven some people up a wall.  Note:  Elder Oaks did not compare the harassment of Mormons and other Proposition 8 supporters to the evils inflicted on African-Americans during the civil rights era.  He instead addressed the effect of those “incidents of violence and intimidation.”

Elder Oaks also said “we must insist on our freedom to preach the “doctrines of our faith,” and that

“as advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious positions or motivations have the right to express their religious views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political participation. . . . even the civil rights of religionists must be exercised legally and wisely. . . . The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.”

Not exactly firebrand stuff, is it?  Finally, and going right to the reason for this blog’s existence, Elder Oaks talked about . . . Article VI of the Constitution!

[F]inally, Latter-day Saints must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement, but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose. But wise religious leaders and members will never advocate religious tests for public office.

Fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their intended purpose. If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists. Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.

We couldn’t have said that better ourselves.

The Upshot

So, Elder Oaks said, in essence, that religious expression is under fire in the United States and that religious people (indeed, all people) ought to be able to speak peaceably in the public square, about public issues, without fear of retaliation for doing so.  That earned him the brickbats of the Left – who thus ironically proved Elder Oaks’ point.

Talk radio host and cultural commentator Dennis Prager often says that the Left believes that because they are inherently and unquestionably right, their tactics can never be legitimately questioned.  The reaction to the Oaks speech certainly seems to support that thesis.  A calm, closely-reasoned speech that urges love and tolerance, but that also urges that religious people should be able respectfully to stand their ground on moral issues, without fear of retaliation, produces a firestorm of criticism.

Good.   That means the debate is going on.  May the best, most principled arguments win.

John adds his thoughts:

I am pleased to see officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stand up for their civil rights in this fashion. In doing so they defend not only their own rights, but the rights of all people of all faiths.  That is something that is very important to remember.  We of the more orthodox Christian faith expressions as well as other non-Christian faiths are indebted to Elder Oaks for this speech.  We need to stand beside out Mormon friends in this – something this blog has insisted upon from the very beginning.

My favorite part of the speech is where Elder Oaks points out that in declaring a “violation of their civil rights” so violently and destructively, proponents of Prop 8 violated those same civil rights of the people the aimed their protests towards.  Americans will always disagree, but we must do so civilly.  Freedom is only free if it applies equally to all.  We learned that the hard way through the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement – it’s in the Declaration of Independence for crying out loud!

Again, kudos to Elder Oaks for standing up in this fashion. This Evangelical Presbyterian stands squarely with him and this speech as should persons of faith of all stripes.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

If the adrenalin isn’t pulsating through your body this morning with news of the results at the Values Voter Summit, you’re not alone. The Washington Huskies beat USC yesterday. Now that’s news. Florida State upended BYU — blew ‘em out. Wow. Virginia Tech topped Nebraska in the last minute of the game. Now that’s exciting.

But that does not keep CNSNews (formerly the Christian News Service) from trying to give the Huckster a leg up out of the thing.  (Oooh – there’s a surprise – where Joel Belz when you need him?)

Poligazette has the videos of Romney’s entire speech, which The Hill’s Pundits Blog seemed to like very well.

Jennifer Rubins at the Contentions blog points out that while in Washington, Romney made some far more substantive appearances than the VVS – like lunch at the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Former governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney was the lunch speaker at the Foreign Policy Initiative conference. In a conversational interview with FPI board member Dan Senor, he appeared more relaxed and fluent than he had on the campaign trail. Without a fixed script (or any notes), he was able to demonstrate some impressive grasp of details while setting forth his big-picture critique of the Obama foreign policy. He gave credit to the president for his willingness to stick to a winning strategy in Iraq and for not “yanking all the troops out,” as he had promised during the campaign. But that is where his praise ended.

The perspective after a Sunday and Monday to digest the VVS is that it is, being nice, “political theater,” not being nice, “a freak show.”  Serious people give it a bit of a head nod and then they move on to stuff that matters.  As I said, by voting for the Huckster, they cast themselves into political irrelevance – or more directly, a political ghetto.  Indeed, it helped build momentum for the spoiler in ‘08, but that is all it did – SPOIL.

So what happens when you spoil a sauce you are making?  Well you start over and this time you do not include the ingredient that caused the spoilage.  That is the risk that Evangelicals run by continuing to back the Huckster, not being included in the ‘12 mix.

Not only is this perspective true from conservative punditry, but also from those on the left who bothered to attack Romney afterwards, not the Huckster.  The Boston Globe dutifully passes on the DNC’s shot at Romney after his FOXNews talking head appearance Sunday morning as a “flip-flopper.”   One of the Reuters blogs is so blatant in its DNC messenger efforts that its almost funny.  There is some irony and comedy in these attacks.  Irony in that they brought out the long knives for the straw poll loser.  Comedy in the use of a charge from the last cycle – they should be smarter than that.

Or maybe they are – maybe they know what we have known all along.  Romney is the real competition, not the Huckster.  But the Huckster can spoil, which opens doors for them.  The spoilage falls out of the religion issue and the flip-flop charge resonates in light of the “Mormons lie” meme.  So maybe, just maybe this attack was timed to perfection to maximize its affect after the VVS.  And the voters at the VVS fell right into their hands and the Huckster is their tool.

Maybe we are the ones that should be smarter than that.

Lowell adds: It will be interesting to see how the “flip-flopper” attack plays out in 2012, when we will be talking about Romney deviating from positions he took in 1994 – 18 years earlier. If Joel Belz and his ilk want to make something of that in the context of Mormons being liars, they’ll look even more ridiculous than they do already.

In fact, that is what the Values Voters activists who voted for Huckabee need to think about the most:  How ridiculous do they want to look?  And, let us remember that only one-third of the attendees at that conference actually voted in the straw poll. What we are seeing are the wishes of the hard-core activists.  Will everyone else allow themselves to be led by that group?  We shall see.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

And while you are reading, here is a bit of a historical perspective.   The blog author linked here is reviewing a book, The Big Sort, about increasing partisanship in the nation.  I like this quote from the book:

Polarization did not come from politicians or the media. Indeed, according to Francia, “elites may be responding to the polarization that exists within the electorate rather than the other way around.” It’s just that in the past three decades, Republicans responded better than Democrats. (126-127)

Anyone who wants to do political action in this nation needs to study that very carefully.   Leadership may not be what you think it is.

What Do The New Media Find Interesting About Religion?

Lowell adds:  “Man bites dog” will always attract a reporter.   This is a few days old now, but we had to say something about it.  It seems that Utah Valley University (a state institution, not to be confused with Brigham Young University) held a symposium called  ”Mormonism in the Public Mind.”   The Boston Globe’s religion reporter, Michael Paulson, was the keynote speaker, and the sessions available included these:

• Richard Bushman, Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling and Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism; 

• Jana Riess, author of Mormonism for Dummies and American Pilgrimage and former Religion Book Review Editor for Publisher’s Weekly; 

• Terryl Givens, Bostwick Professor of English at the University of Richmond and author of Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy and The Latter-day Saint Experience in America; 

• Claudia Bushman; author of Contemporary Mormonism: Latter-day Saints in Modern America, and Building the Kingdom: A History of Mormons in America

Of all the fascinating options, however, the session that attracted Paulson  was the one he called  ”What’s It Like to Be A Mormon Progressive?”  There he heard from Mormons who appear to be swimming upstream culturally and politically.

For example, a man named Morris Thurston spoke about his Prop 8 experience – not as a supporter of the measure, an activity for which Mormons are now either famous or infamous, depending on one’s view, but for opposing Prop 8 even though he is a Mormon.  What Mr. Thurston did, in essence, was write a rebuttal to a controversial and anonymous pro-Prop 8 piece that sought to list some negative consequences if Prop 8 failed.  

So why is that so interesting to the Boston Globe religion writer?  Well, Mr. Thurston billed himself on his written rebuttal as an “adjunct professor of law at Brigham Young University.”  Keep in mind that Mr. Thurston is a retired patent lawyer who taught (or perhaps still teaches) a patent law course at BYU’s J. Reuben Clark Law School.  He is not a legal expert on anything related to Prop 8 and is no more qualified to comment on that measure than anyone else.  But that BYU Law connection made him terribly interesting to the news media, and throughout the debate over Prop 8 we heard the measure’s opponents refer repeatedly to “the BYU professor of law who opposes Prop 8.”  One must admit, that description does catch one’s attention.  (Note:  Morris Thurston and I have corresponded.  He has been unfailingly kind and polite to me and I do not doubt his sincerity.  I suspect that when he wrote his rebuttal, he did not intend to become a center of controversy.  Mr. Thurston later issued a press release stating that his claim to a BYU connection appeared in an early draft of his rebuttal that was not authorized for publication.  I am not commenting on his actions, but on Michael Paulson’s journalistic instincts.)

Anyway, that’s how you attract news media attention to  religion story.  Morris Thurston gets press because he appeared to be “a man biting a dog.”  Anything that emphasizes whackiness or internal dissension among religious people will make you famous.  We saw this a lot during the Romney campaign.   Remember the bizarre interest in Governor Romney’s underwear?  As we’ve said many times, we don’t think the news media “gets” religion.  Mr. Paulson gives us further evidence.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

In fact, the current status of the same-sex marriage issue in our society is largely the product of a critical distinction between state constitutional law and federal constitutional law. Simply put, state constitutional interpretation is not reserved exclusively for judges. The methods by which voters may amend state constitutions, although varying from state to state, are far more flexible than the process by which the U.S. Constitution may be amended. A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court may be “overturned” by constitutional amendment, but that event is rare. It has happened only four times in our nation’s history, and once, it required a civil war. In contrast, in the past decade, citizens in more than two dozen states have amended their constitutions through popular vote to reverse or forestall favorable consideration of gay marriage claims. State courts stand at the intersection where constitutional law meets direct democracy. Indeed, the progressive movement engineered the traffic pattern. The road may lead to direct judicial recognition of same-sex marriage, unencumbered by voter amendment, as in Massachusetts and Connecticut, or it may lead to court decisions — such as those in Vermont, New Jersey and California — that find a constitutional right to all the rights and benefits of marriage. But every state constitutional court must acknowledge that in a system that preserves the right of citizens to amend their constitutions, a judicial decision may be the opening argument in a process that preserves the ultimate constitutional authority of the people. 

One is tempted to like what one reads here, but it is also an argument for progressives for the federalization of marriage regulation – which strikes me as a terribly bad idea.  And then, a LDS member in Iowa comments on what he sees as anti-Mormon bigotry endemic in . . . Utah?!

I noticed that after Utah and BYU athletic events, many bloggers simply use the occasion to display anti-Mormon hatred that had little relevance to the actual game. After a recent BYU loss, readers wrote items such as: “The Angel Moroni must have been taking a smoke break to allow this to have happened!” “On the bright side, Coug fans . . . at least you’ll have your whole Saturday to gamble, drink and hit the strip clubs before you go to church tomorrow.” A common assertion is that “BYU is the most hated team in America.” This is an irrational but characteristic statement of those who think like bigots.    

Fascinating observations, and I am struck with two contrary reactions.  The one observation is that is pretty ugly stuff, really nasty and bigoted (but also common to comments made about almost all religion-based schools) and the other is the caution that we have discussed here before that it is easy for Mormons to overplay the victim card after the last election cycle.The author observes parallels between Utah and the deep South.  I have a lot of experience in the South (born at the University of Mississippi in 1957 ) and have travelled rural, southern Utah quite a bit, although Salt Lake City and environs not so much.  I see the parallels in that there is a real sense of segregation in Utah, but how much deeper it goes, I am not sure.In the modern South, the segregation is accomodated by both sides.  The real barriers are down, but few African-Americans choose to cross the border, thus it remains somewhat segregated if not institutionally so.  My point is that attitudes, on both sides, are what maintain towns that you can draw a line through and divide.  In such situations, is it better to cry “bigotry,” or take the risk and cross the border?Two stories…two fine lines…one legal the other attitudinal.  Tough decisions all the way around.

Lowell adds:  Regarding the so-called bigotry in Utah, it is difficult to compare that state to the rest of the USA.  The “us” and “them” problem is one everyone there has stuggled with for 150 years.  Add in the often bitter BYU-University of Utah sports rivalry, and you have a subject that encompasses much more than simple religious bigotry.  There are idiots involved in every sports rivalry, and the Utah-BYU rivalry is no exception. (Full disclosure:  I am a Utah grad and avid sports fan of that fine institution.  I also recognize that there are probably more rivalry-related idiots on my side than on the BYU side.  But we don’t have the exclusive franchise on such folks, I’m afraid.)  Bottom line:  There may be bigotry, but the sports rivalry is not the place to hunt it down or stamp it out.    

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Lowell,

I’m not doing much posting this week, so here’s a quick personal response via creaky dialup where I am on vacation.

About evangelicals themselves, I’m inclined to think that some of the reaction to Romney’s flip-flopping is at most semi-conscious. The point there is that to the extent he has moved in evangelicals’ direction on certain social issues, he may only have confirmed their suspicion of Mormons. As for me, I don’t, as a Jew, really have a dog in that fight. I think generally people should get to call themselves what they want to, and if they believe in Jesus as God and Savior, that seems Christian to me.

If I ran the nomenclature world, though, I might prefer a different word for both Mormons and those who call themselves Messianic Jews (or Jews for Jesus); namely, Judeo-Christians. For one thing, the LDS Church understands itself (or used to) as restoring ancient Israel as well as early Christianity. For another, Mormons do not profess the historic creeds. So Judeo-Christian might be a helpful way of identifying certain churches and sects. But of course that’s not going to happen.

So, as far as I’m concerned, Christian it is. As for the false pretenses part, well, there’s always a risk of that charge when at issue is a religion that has some esoteric component, and Mormonism has always had that. But Mormon missionaries never make any bones about the fact that they do represent the LDS Church, so I fail to see how the pretenses are false, except from the standpoint of those who refuse to allow Mormons the name Christian.

Cheers, Mark

Thanks, Mark.  For the record, Mormons like to refer to our faith as “restored Christianity,” but that’s not a term we use very much outside our own walls.  Meanwhile,  Bob Millet of BYU has some timely comments in response to this provocative question:

Isn’t it true the [LDS] church has changed its emphasis on Christ as a public relations ploy? Why do you want to be Christians all of a sudden?

Read the whole thing.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The Cluelessness of Ken Woodward

Well, maybe that should be the clueless and arrogant elitism of Kenneth Woodward, Newsweek’s retired religion editor. All three defects appeared in Woodward’s New York Times op-ed yesterday.

Most people who follow the issue of Mitt Romney’s religion and its impact on his candidacy have already read Kenneth Woodward’s Times piece, The Presidency’s Mormon Moment. As a Mormon, or a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”), I had become accustomed to Woodward’s writing about my faith. His work seemed to me consistently negative, often simply mistaken or at best distorted in important respects, and frequently unfair.

Apparently I wasn’t the only Mormon who thought so. As I wrote yesterday, Jan Shipps is the foremost non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism. In 2002 Shipps wrote about press coverage of the Church during the during the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics. In a revealing aside, she reports that Woodward, while writing a Newsweek cover story on the Church’s impact on the Games, couldn’t get even one member of the LDS First Presidency or Quorum of Twelve Apostles to sit for an interview. Presumably the LDS leaders were gun-shy because of Woodward’s poor history of writing about Mormons.

That’s kind of like a reporter on the Congressional beat who has burned so many members of Congress so many times, no congressman or congresswoman will talk to him.

So I came to Woodward’s op-ed with low expectations. When I first blogged about it yesterday, I didn’t even bother to question the biggest howlers in his piece. Ironically, only after I saw the outraged reactions of my Evangelical co-blogger John and Hugh Hewitt (also a non-Mormon) did I realize how poor a job Woodward had done.

When I briefly called in to Hugh’s show toward the end of the day, he urged us to “do an annotated edition of the Woodward interview.” Well, we’ll improve a little on Hugh’s idea and annotate portions of both the New York Times op-ed itself and Hugh’s interview. Remember those three themes: (1) clueless (2) arrogant (3) elitist.

The New York Times Op-ed

Quoted below are some of the more galling paragraphs from Mr. Woodward’s piece:

“Among the reasons Americans distrust the Mormon church is Mormon clannishness. Because every worthy Mormon male is expected to be a lay priest in voluntary service to the church, the demands on his time often leave little opportunity to cultivate close friendships with non-Mormon neighbors. A good Mormon is a busy Mormon. Those — like Mr. Romney — who serve as bishops (pastors of congregations) often find it difficult to schedule evenings at home with their own families.”

It’s hard to know where to begin with this one. As a Mormon, I always smile when people like Mr. Woodward tell me what my life is like. My non-Mormon friends and neighbors will probably find it surprising that I don’t have time for them. Jesting aside, it is true that we Mormons develop fast friendships within our faith community. Beyond that, a gross generalization like Woodward’s is simply impossible to respond to.

“To many Americans, Mormonism is a church with the soul of a corporation. Successful Mormon males can expect to be called, at some time in their lives, to assume full-time duties in the church’s missions, in its vast administrative offices in Salt Lake City or in one of many church-owned businesses. Mormons like to hire other Mormons, and those who lose their jobs can count on the church networks to find them openings elsewhere. Mr. Romney put those same networks to effective use in raising part of his $23 million in campaign contributions.”

“To many Americans.” Which ones would those be? I suspect that means, “To Ken Woodward.” It’s a little hard to imagine someone remarking, during a lunchtime conversation, “You know, that Mormon Church really does seem to have the soul of a corporation, doesn’t it?”

Now, I’m not a journalist, I’m a mere attorney, and maybe I have too much respect for the idea that assertions need some factual support, and simply citing “many Americans” as support doesn’t suffice. Don’t journalists– even those writing op-ed pieces– think so too?

As for the basic assertion here, the Church has a lay ministry, so we all have to serve in order for the organization to survive. Some teach little children in Sunday School, some serve as Scoutmaster. A very few serve in the top-level positions to which Woodward refers. The business about the “church networks” finding us jobs– well, we wish that were true. We do have an employment service that charges no commission to prospective employers, but that service is open to all comers, Mormon and non-Mormon, and the applicants eventually have to get past the interviews and actually convince the employer they’re qualified.

In Woodward’s April 9 interview with Hugh Hewitt, Hugh raised Woodward’s “to many Americans” language. This exchange (in blue type below) ensued:

HH: . . . What do you base that on?

KW: Oh, come on. What do you want me to say? 562,000 Americans, as opposed to 57, 14…you know…

HH: Just a level, just a level, just sort of a rough number.

KW: Yeah, yeah, I think that’s the image of it, and that’s the way I put it. I think you know that.

HH: No, but I mean, how many is many? I’m sure that some people believe that. But at what point…what do you think? How many, what percentage of Americans do you believe believe that?

KW: I don’t know. Am I supposed to know?

HH: Yeah, I think you write something in the New York Times, you ought to have something to back it up.

KW: Hey, look, you know, you’re kind of unbelievable. Look, what did you want me to do? Run a survey before I did it? Of course I used many. I could have used some. I think that’s true.

HH: Could have used a few.

KW: And you’re really picking at something. I mean, you know, you’ve got a bug up your butt about something, I don’t know.”

Does anyone else detect some real annoyance on Woodward’s part at being held to account this way? I wonder if he was ever subjected to such scrutiny during his 38 years as Newsweek’s religion editor?

Back to Woodward’s op-ed:

“Moreover, Mormons are perceived to be unusually secretive. Temple ceremonies — even weddings — are closed to non-Mormons, and church members are told not to disclose what goes on inside them. This attitude has fed anti-Mormon charges of secret and unholy rites.”

[This is a very old anti-Mormon argument; we commented on it in detail here.]

“[T]he candidate should take the time to set the record straight. . . . But Mr. Romney must be sure to express himself in a way that will be properly understood. Any journalist who has covered the church knows that Mormons speak one way among themselves, another among outsiders. [What?] This is not duplicity but a consequence of the very different meanings Mormon doctrine attaches to words it shares with historic Christianity.

“For example, Mormons speak of God, but they refer to a being who was once a man of ‘flesh and bone,’ like us.”

[Well, no. We believe God, the Father of us all, now has a body of flesh and bone. We do believe God is an exalted man, and that's a complex doctrine I can't do justice to here. But I won't quibble about small stuff like that. When Catholics talk about the Stations of the Cross, I must admit I am not sure what they're talking about either. Even so, I know it's important to my Catholic friends, so I leave it alone.]

John inserts himself briefly: I have read several books on Mormon theology and the best of them, one by Robert Millet out of BYU and the other co-authored by Stephen Robinson (Mormon) and Craig Bloomberg (creedal), admit that creedals and Mormons often use the same words in different ways. However, in my experience is this does not lead to “talking differently” inside and outside, but rather a whole lot of ground-laying when talking at all.

Besides, this is really a thinly-veiled accusation of lying. It is a particularly egregious accusation because its real purpose is to lend credence to attacks on other fronts that might otherwise be considered trivial, like the whole hunting thing. This is a truly ugly form of bias and bigotry. We really should be better than this as a nation.

And now – back to quoting Woodward and Lowell:

“[Mormons] speak of salvation, but to them that means admittance to a “celestial kingdom” where a worthy couple can eventually become “gods” themselves. The Heavenly Father of whom they speak is married to a Heavenly Mother. And when they emphasize the importance of the family, they may be referring to their belief that marriage in a Mormon temple binds families together for all eternity.”

[Yes, that's part of it, because we believe the family unit can be eternal. Most people find that to be a very appealing idea. It is not some kind of code; it's simply what we believe.]

“Thus, when Mr. Romney told South Carolina Republicans a few months ago that Jesus was his ‘personal savior,’ he used Southern Baptist language to affirm a relationship to Christ that is quite different in Mormon belief. (For Southern Baptists, ‘personal savior’ implies a specific born-again experience that is not required or expected of Mormons.)”

[That's news to me. See if you can read this chapter from the Book of Mormon– well-known to committed Church members– and come to the same conclusion. Hint: It discusses how "to gain salvation, men must repent and keep the commandments, be born again, cleanse their garments through the blood of Christ, be humble and strip themselves from pride and envy, and do the works of righteousness."]

‘Especially at Regent University, Mr. Romney should avoid using language that blurs fundamental differences among religious traditions. Rather, he should acknowledge those differences and insist that no candidate for public office should have to apologize for his or her religious faith.”

[But isn't Woodward asking that Romney do just that? Does Woodward really believe that once Romney makes an "explanation" of Mormon doctrines, that will be the end of the matter, the way Kennedy's speech ended discussion of his Catholicism? Call me cynical, but I can imagine a story about Romney's "explanation," complete with quotes from leaders of other faiths, disagreeing with him or accusing him of revising "real" Mormon doctrine to make it more palatable. Of course there would be quotes from other Mormons claiming he got the doctrine wrong, and the obligatory quote from something Brigham Young or Joseph Smith is claimed to have said on the same subject 150 years ago. The discussion would be a confusing mess, and voters would be no better prepared to vote for or against Romney than they were before the explanation.]

“Finally, there is the question of authority in the Church of Latter-day Saints, and of what obligations an office holder like Mr. Romney must discharge. Like the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church has a hierarchical structure in which ultimate authority is vested in one man. But unlike the pope, the church’s president is also regarded as God’s own “prophet” and “revelator.” Every sitting prophet is free to proclaim new revelations as God sees fit to send them — a form of divine direction that Mormon missionaries play as a trump card against competing faiths.”

If Woodward had read Hugh Hewitt’s book, or this very blog, he would know that Romney has specifically addressed that very subject:

“Would you ever expect a call from [LDS Church] President Hinckley or his successor?” I asked.

“No,” he emphatically replied. “Absolutely not. And I’d also note that when you take the oath of office, that is your highest oath and first responsibility. That’s true when you become governor, it’s certainly true for anyone who becomes president. When I placed my hand on . . . the Bible . . . when I was sworn in as governor . . . my highest and first responsibility was to honor my oath of office and follow the Constitution and protect the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For those sworn into national office, their highest obligation is to the nation. It would be inappropriate for Church officials to contact me and it would be less than appropriate for me to take guidance from any institution other than caring first for the oath of office.”

How many times does Romney have to say that? Hugh’s book, by the way, is a quick but informative read. Woodward ought to get himself a copy. Back to Woodward’s op-ed:

The issues above are real to many people . . .

There he goes again with that anonymous source!

The Hugh Hewitt Interview

Hugh had Woodward on his show for the better part of an hour yesterday. The entire interview is here, and I recommend it to you. Mostly it consists of Hugh trying to get a straight answer out of Woodward, and we can’t really blog about it very effectively.

As I listened to a podcast of the interview this morning, I noticed this exchange for the first time:

HH: Do you have any Mormons who are friends of yours?

KW: Yeah.

HH: Close friends?

KW: Yeah. . . . The Mormons I would tend to meet with would tend to be journalists and academics. I mean, I used to go…are you familiar with the Sunstone, the Mormon magazine?

HH: Yes. . . .

KW: All right. I’ve addressed their conference a couple of times, so you can get a different kind of Mormon at those places.

So the Mormons Woodward knows well are journalists, academics, and those who attend Sunstone conferences. There isn’t space here to describe everything I think that means, but I suspect that even members of those three groups would readily tell you that they are far from representative of most Mormons. For example, the majority of them would, I’ll wager, be much bigger fans of Harry Reid than Mitt Romney. Also, on the pages of Sunstone you will very often find criticism of the Church from what might best be described as a “liberal,” or left-leaning, point of view. In fact, the journal’s then-editor once described Sunstone to me as the voice of the “loyal opposition” within Mormonism.

That’s Woodward’s “focus group” for understanding what Mormons are like and what we really think, and it shows: Woodward said he read his comment about the Church having “the soul of a corporation” to some of his Mormon friends, and they “laughed.” Well, it’s no surprise that Mormons in that demographic group would laugh at such a comment. Some of them whom I know personally have been expressing that very sentiment for years.

(Full disclosure: I was a Sunstone staffer 30 years ago during my student days. I’m afraid I was a real slacker, and did little for the cause; I quit after a year or so because of my personal discomfort with the journal’s tone, content, and direction.)

Beyond that, this excerpt may be the most telling of the entire interview:

HH: No, but I think it’s a fairly bigoted piece that does great injury to…

KW: Well, you obviously have made that point. And I think you know, I think you’re wrong, that’s all.

HH: And so if a bunch of Mormons wrote you that they were offended by it, would you take into account…

KW: I expect someone to, yeah. I expect them to do that. I expect somebody will.

HH: And that won’t bother you?

KW: Not particularly, no. Not unless they’ve got a good argument to make, better than yours.

HH: At what point do stereotypes begin to drive religious bigotry in ways that hurt the society at large?

KW: I don’t know, because I don’t indulge in those kind of stereotypes?

HH: So what’s the difference between Mormons hiring other Mormons and Jews hoarding money? Both stereotypes. What’s the difference?

KW: Well, I don’t think Jews hoard money.

HH: So it’s just…

KW: But I do think…I know Mormons hire other Mormons.

HH: So it’s the Gospel according to Woodward?

KW: And it’s not a negative…hey, you know what? It’s not negative. It’s not negative. It’s perfectly understandable, okay?

HH: And if Mormons told you it was negative, would that matter to you?

KW: Nope.

HH: So it is the Gospel according to Woodward. . . . Are you open to the argument that maybe this was tremendously offensive to Mormons?

KW: I’m open to the argument, yeah. So what?

HH: All right. So what? I guess not. . . .

KW: I know what you think.

HH: If you went through and substituted Jew for Mormon, it would be one of the most…

KW: Oh, that’s too simple-minded. It really is too simple-minded.

HH: Why, because…

KW: There are groups…have you ever been around the Greek Orthodox?

HH: Why, are they secretive, too?

KW: They are an ethnically based Church. And it’s to be expected. Not secretive…

HH: Well, what do they do that’s…

KW: Not secretive.

HH: Are they secretive?

KW: Not secretive, no. You supplied the word, I didn’t.

HH: So what’s…

KW: Greeks, Greeks feel more comfortable with other Greeks. Greeks often, unfortunately, I’ve seen this in the orthodox world, are…they’ve had a considerable rubbing against, say, the Russian Orthodox, all right? It’s part of the history.

HH: Can you give me any…

KW: Just there. It’s there in society.

HH: Can you give me any…

KW: You seem to find this extraordinary news. I don’t.

HH: How about Irish Catholics? Give me a couple of things to go by on those?

KW: Well, they used to be, but not much anymore, because…

HH: They were drinkers, right?

KW: They’ve lost a lot of…

HH: We drank a lot.

KW: The lot of…their clannishness. Well, we did at Ignatius. [That's Woodward's Catholic high school in Cleveland. –Ed.] I don’t know about other places.

Well, you get the picture. Again, I have a hunch that Ken Woodward is not accustomed to close, probing, real-time analysis of his work, or challenges to his conclusions. Maybe he retired from the MSM just in time.

John adds: OK, my first comment is frustration – I am on vacation for crying out loud! This blog has a very narrow portfolio, why does stuff have to break while I am on vacation!?!?! I guess that is why God invented laptops and hotels with high speed connections. Now to get serious.

First of all, I think Woodward was born in the stone age and has stayed there. Consider this from the April 9 interview with Hewitt:

HH: What I want to talk to you about are some of the statements made in your New York Times piece today, as whether or not you personally subscribe to them. For example, Kenneth Woodward, do you personally believe that the Mormon Church is clannish?

KW: I think as a generalization, that’s true. And I don’t mean is so much negatively. If you can remember when Italians couldn’t get into an Irish union, never mind blacks getting into a white union, preserving jobs for their friends and so on, that’s a kind of thing that I’m talking about. I’m thinking about…but more importantly, look at their history. You know, they were people forged on an exodus, with a huge amount of intermarriage, a strong sense that the world was against them, and also, a Church as welfare state, the food in the basement, that kind of stuff. Now they do look after each other. I was talking to a friend of mind, a classmate, who was a National Security Advisor in Nixon’s administration. And we were talking about just that thing. They’ve got people in at a certain point, and certainly after a while, more Mormons were coming in and so on.

Our nation has spent the better part of the last century trying to overcome precisely the prejudices that Woodward seems to intimate were somehow benign and non-problematic. I find his appeal to history, even Mormon history, fascinating. It is after all very old history and yet he makes the appeal several times in the interview with Hewitt. Here is just one other example:

HH: All right, how about this line. To many Americans, Mormonism is a Church with the soul of a corporation. Do you believe that, Kenneth Woodward?

KW: Do I believe that?

HH: Yeah.

KW: I think that’s a pretty good description. I bounced it off a few Mormons, and they laughed and said yeah.

HH: Well, what do you mean by it?

KW: Oh, there is a corporate side to it. I think the communal and communitarian side that was pretty, how would you want to say, pretty radical in the 19^th Century. The old Mormonism, if you will, had issued in a very strong corporate style.

Mormons do have a unique and interesting history, but this is now not then. First of all, we addressed much of this history and how the CJCLDS has changed in the five-part series we did on Kathleen Flake’s book on the seating of Reed Smoot to the US Senate 100 years ago. If you are interested, here it is: I — II — III — IV — V. In that series we asserted and demonstrated that the CJCLDS has historical issues that are, first of all, similar to those that most creedal Christian sects have had and that like creedal Christian sects they have worked hard to overcome those issues, meaning what may have been a problem in history, is not a problem now. Bringing it up is a bit like saying Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton had big issues because they hailed from slave states.

Woodward attempts to excuse his clear bigotry by saying he was discussing what he thought was the common “perception” of Mormons, e.g.

HH: Okay, what about when you write the Mormons…

KW: Well, I don’t see the distinction you’re trying to make between secret and closed. I’m saying when things are closed, this…and what’s the verb in there, huh? Perceived.

There are still people out there that “perceive” blacks as . . . well, I can’t bring myself to write it. Which is, I think, the point. People with those “perceptions” are called bigots and we do not pass on the views of bigots as blithely and non-judgmentally as Woodward did in his op-ed or his interview with Hewitt. I mean, where do we hear from the KKK now? Mostly from Jerry Spinger and his ilk, and mostly because the KKK has descended to the level of self-parody. And yet in this instance those “perceptions” are reported as a matter of course without the ridicule, denial, or incredulity that we see in other cases thereof.

All we get are glowing pieces about Barack Obama; nobody is writing pieces about how the remaining racists in the nation perceive blacks in general and how that could be a problem for Obama. I wonder why?

One last refutation – Woodward contends that “Mormons hire Mormons.” Conveniently, yesterday’s Washington Post published a profile of the Romney campaign’s inside circle. It does not mention the religious affiliation of any of them. There is only one I know for sure is Mormon (Spencer Zwick), but there are several I know for sure are not. So, where’s the beef?

But I think the last paragraph of Hewitt’s original blog post on the Woodward op-ed may be the most telling thing written on all of this to date:

…I wonder at what point will Beltway-Manhattan elite media have to recognize that Romney has been asked often and has answered all of the “questions” raised by Mr. Woodward? It is one of the essential traits of bigotry to refuse to acquaint oneself with the easily available facts about the object of the scorn so as to nurse that scorn more easily.

More than ever this incident demonstrates that the old media is on its last legs and cannot survive. Woodward has clearly been lazy in the preparation of this piece. It seems apparent, particularly from the interview, that he did not do a stitch of original work in the writing of this piece; in his retirement he appears to have relied on his recollections and old notes to cobble something together. His appeals to “old Mormonism” seem a tacit admission to that very fact. Before new media, he could have gotten away with this, but no more.

In isolation, this piece would not seem so bad, but in the Internet age, no piece in a major newpaper exists in isolation. One of the more truly amazing things about this is that the newspaper that considers itself “American’s paper of record” is so far behind the curve here. Woodward’s piece is remarkably similar to the dozens of others we have seen and linked to on this blog over the last year. When everybody read just their local paper such pieces were not part of the news, but instead they were THE news, but now they simply have the appearance of piling on. The Old Grey Lady is reduced to attempting to have the final say instead of THE say.

In other words, the new media has exposed this latent bigotry in a new and vital way. What used to be “conventional wisdom” has in this case been exposed as collective ignorance, a decision to “refuse to acquaint oneself with the easily available facts” and bias. The key question is bias against what? Given Woodward’s history of Mormon bashing, it is hard to know for him specifically, but across the MSM it should be obvious. The bias is against conservatism far more than Mormonism, but they appear not afraid to use Romney’s faith as a tool in that effort.

The other thing that is apparent, particularly in the interview and Woodward’s appeal to “perception,” is that they want to make a case not only that Mormons are wierd, but also that Evangelicals are bigots. They think they have a “twofer” on their hands. And here the new media really shines. They no longer can function as gatekeepers, and we can get the word out that their stereotypes of Mormons and Evangelicals is just wrong. The Old Grey Lady cannot even manage the final say.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.