Article VI Blog

A Volatile Mix…

What mix?  Well for starters, Mitt Romney (God forbid anyone would be allowed to forget he’s a Mormon!) is polling very well and came out with an awesome op-ed in the Boston Globe.  Secondly, the religious angle to the Nevada Senate race is getting really ugly. (Pun intended – and for the record, while Sharon Angle did pathetically open this can of worms, it’s Reid that has gone all “attack dog” over it.)  There are religion angles in other mid-term races as well.  And finally, the Ground Zero Mosque controversy just keeps rolling along, despite some enormously silly comparisons. (I don’t get the comparison at all, frankly.)  So, what do we get out of all of this?  (I am not going to go near the “Obama’s a Muslim” meme – it’s just silly.  See some reasonable commentary from Slublog and a CSM blog points out that the man’s lack of convictions creates a vacuum that needs to be filled – but give me a break, some vacuums need to remain empty.)

There are a lot of cries that Romney should be be “out front” of the GZM issue.  After all, he’d be a “hypocrite” otherwise.  Funny how all these calls have come from the left, like Newsweek and CNN.  Allahpundit looks wisely at the political wisdom of Romney’s play here.  Ramesh Ponnuru used the controversy to point out that Evangelicals are not really biased against Mormons so much as they are identity voters.  (Not sure that’s true in Iowa, Ramesh, but you are probably right about the rest of the country.)

The point Ramesh makes is applicable here as well, there is no bias at play in the GZM controversy – it’s not a First Amendment issue at all, it’s a land use/zoning issue.  No one is saying that Muslims cannot worship freely and openly in Manhattan, just not on that spot in Manhattan.  In the ‘08 cycle, so many were quick to point out that despite Article VI of the constitution they were free to exercise their privilege in the voting booth as they saw fit.  That’s something we never contested.  We, like Ramesh, wondered about the wisdom of voting by identity, but never abouit the right to do so.

There is little Romney can do to help himself here.  Should he step out on GZM on a Constitutional level he will elevate the issue to a place that it clearly does not belong and blow his excellent conservative credentials on matters legal and constitutional.  Should he attack it on a zoning/land use level he will fuel those that did exercise anti-Mormon bigotry last time to do so again.

Besides, it’s really a local matter, not a federal one.

Also-rans…

People run for POTUS for a lot of reasons – they want to inject a specific issue into the campaign; they want to accumulate personal power for other political purposes; they want to accumulate public recognition for a career in media in some fashion – the list could go on for a while.  The point is that the simple descriptive “former candidate for president of the United States” buys a person quite a bit.  Right now, the media-discussed Republican “field” is full of such people.

This can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing.  It is a good thing when they bring something to the campaign that might otherwise not be picked up. That’s probably why a Rick Santorum run continues to become a higher probability.   Santorum will never get elected, but a credible run on his part will keep social issues somewhere in the mix in an election where they could be off the table altogether.  With the economy in the state it is in, they certainly should not be front and center, but they are important.

The presence of Haley Barbour in the mix may be good or bad.  He is a formidable fund raiser and his presence in the race, at least for a time, can increase that ability – which can certainly aid other more viable candidates.  He also, as Santorum, can serve as a target for some of the more cartoonish attacks from the left leaving the serious players a more open playing field.  However, problems can arise if in his desire to use his fund raising prowess to serve as “kingmaker” he ends up being more self-serving rather than party-serving. (Lowell interjects:  Barbour is a former RNC Chairman who has a history as a party man.  So I like to think – hope? – he would not be self-serving.)

Need an example of the whole self-serving model?  Look no further than our old “friend” Mike Huckabee.  He is polling well in Iowa, but that is about as surprising as ice in Antarctica.  We will not review here (we’ve done it already) how Huckabee, by hanging around like he did without an iceberg’s chance, mucked up ‘08.  Huckabee is currently billing himself as “a preacher who accepts all, a politician that never plays politics and a host unlike any other.”  Do I think he’ll run?  At this point, yeah – I do.  Which means the serious players will have to make Iowa unimportant which will neutralize him for the rest of the campaign.  Huckabee will be aided by a press that desperately wants Iowa to matter – which will be fine for Huckabee since media is really what he is after.  But we cannot let him serve the party another mediocre candidate.

Inside Evangelical Politics…

Last week we pointed out that it seems like it is always the left that gets truly rhetorically nasty.  That rule seems to hold true inside Evangelicalism as well as out of it.  Last week Jim Wallis did an interview and he turned absolutely uncharitable on Marvin Olasky.   At the Corner, Jay Richards said:

What to say at this point? At the very least, Wallis has abandoned even the pretense of civil discourse here. Olasky has evidence of Soros grants to Sojourners, so the most that Wallis would be justified in saying is that Olasky is mistaken and that the evidence is misleading or fraudulent (which seems unlikely). Instead, he says that Olasky is lying for a living.

Hugh Hewitt said:

So Marvin Olasky was slandered by Jim Wallis, as was Glenn Beck.  Wouldn’t a man seeking to represent Christians be quick to apologize to both?  If Wallis has done so, I haven’t seen it.

Wallis has corrected his incorrect factual assertions, but his tone and demeanor have remained unchanged.  Is it any wonder people do not like us so much?

And while we are on the subject – R.R. Reno had some interesting thoughts on civility.

Those Mormon Ads…

Are still being discussed a bit – mostly by bitter, unhappy people.  The CJCLDS continues to make the “Romney denials.“  I do want to comment that it takes a very narrow view of a church, any church, to think that advertisements for the church are about presidential candidates from within the church – or even about Prop 8.  Jan Shipps has argued again and again that while the Mormons were historically more ethnicity than church, they have transformed since WWII with the geographical diaspora it created among them,  into pretty much a standard American “come on in on Sunday” church with some rather idiosyncratic theology.

Religion Generally…

…is under attack. (Hey! – we told you so.)  “On Faith” is recycling the same old question in new circumstances.  It’ll be interesting to see how different the answers are with a different person and religion.  The fact that there is a difference is the actual heart of the problem.

Patheos, the new religion site that has been getting much buzz lately with collections of essays on the future of Catholicism and Evangelicalism has now done such a collection on Mormonism.  This one seemed particularly interesting.  Patheos may prove to be a great resource, but so far they are resisting our technical attempts to monitor their content remotely – this is not good when you try to track as much info as we do.

The line between sports humor and religious/political attack is a fine one.  Is Keith Olberman a trailblazer?  Far as I know, he has never been near Portland.

Some are saying American Protestantism is the most destructive religion in history.  Call me when a Presbyterian flies an airplane into a skyscraper.

Some say the Shakers are “sinister.“  Wrong on some things – perhaps, but “sinister?!”  Nah, no bone to pick with religion here.

The courts are at it again.  I wonder if soon we are going to have to disguise churches that can be seen from highways?  And what about this puppy? – I saw it a few weeks ago – it is big!

And in Australia, the church/state line is getting way too blurry for my taste.

Lowell adds . . .

For those who missed it, Hot Air offered an interesting twist last week on the news media’s apparent double standard on presidential religion.  The whole post is worth reading.  A key paragraph:

As I’ve said, I don’t really care what Obama believes. What bothers me is that the press only seems to think a president’s religion is important when his faith can be used to question his policy priorities. If those priorities go against the views of those in the media, then Christianity is a scary fringe faith that needs examining. If the president is progressive, then his faith is pure and he’s only trying to do what’s best for the country. No reason to ask uncomfortable questions.

The writer’s  point is that the news media expressed great discomfort, concern, and curiosity about G.W. Bush’s faith and its impact on his actions as president, but seem to think Obama’s Christianity is simply admirable, normal,  and pretty much beyond inquiry.

I think we see a variation in the same phenomenon with Romney and even Huckabee.  Long-time readers of this blog will remember a news reporter’s confession that while on a visit to Romney’s home she actually snooped around his bathroom, hoping to find a sample of his uniquely Mormon underwear.  (I can tell you it would have been hard for her to tell it from anyone else’s Fruit of the Loom.)   Huck, despite being my least-favorite Republican in the 2008 cycle, drew my sympathy because his Baptist faith was constantly under the microscope and treated as a real curiosity and a matter of serious public interest.

Which is my way of saying that in the presidential arena, religion has become a reporters’ tool that is too often used to shape the narrative – but mainly by the MSM and the liberal punditocracy, and only when it suits their favored candidates’ purposes.  As we’ve often said here, a presidential candidate’s religion is important only about 10% as often as the news media seems to think it is – and even that may be an exaggeration.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Reading List, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

…Is Spin Passing For News!

And yes, that is most definitely a “failure to communicate,” he said completing the famous and almost trite movie quotation.

Breaking from his vacation, as I am from mine, my friend Hugh Hewitt points out, in this week of way too much race-based news:

Did any of the JournoList participants rebuke Spencer Ackerman’s suggestion that Fred Barnes or Karl Rove be made a target of a manufactured “racist” charge?

Ackerman will be carrying the burden of that despicable suggestion for the rest of his “career” such as it is, but it may even be worse to have been a participant in the list and to have said nothing when such an assault was proposed.  Even if the “journalists” on the list hated Karl Rove as an extension of Bush and thus talked themselves into this repulsive group-think, many of them know for a fact that Fred is among the most decent and large-hearted of journalists.  To have said nothing when a colleague or far worse, a friend, was nominated for the worst sort of slander is an extraordinary personal failure.  Whether any of those who were party to it step forward to apologize will be interesting to watch.

[...]

When Andrew Breitbart posted the NAACP video, he did not know it had been edited. Journalists who commented on the story did not know of the editing either.

But everyone on JournoList knew that Ackerman was proposing a Big Lie in the service of a political agenda –Ackerman admitted that himself– so they all stood by and said nothing. The only defense that any of them have is that Ackerman was an insignificant loon or that they missed his post, even though it appeared in the middle of the biggest story of the time period.

Just this morning, over my hotel breakfast, FoxNews was discussing newly leaked JournoList postings from campaign ‘08 trying to paint the Palin VP nomination as “sexist.”

There are two terribly important lessons for this blog that can be taken away from this scandal and the USDA atrocities of the week.

The first is that the press, at least a significant portion of it, is all too willing to discuss the use of label/identity based spin to aid the Democratic side of the aisle.  It confirms something that people have known all along.  The lack of discrimination is born not in monitoring the use of identity labels, but in being blind to them.  When considered, whether in base discrimination, such as Jim Crow, or in the type of “reverse discrimination” we are seeing from the JournoList crowd they are political weapons, and they are poltical weapons that our common understanding, and in some cases our constitution place off limits.

Religion is one of those identity labels that our constitution places strictly off limits.  The reason for that is very straightforward – all it can do is serve to create conflict when what we need is the finding of common ground to move the nation forward.  The USDA events of the past week show that the opportunity for mischief with identity factors is just too great to use them AT ALL.

Which brings me to this very interesting piece by Kenneth Anderson on the Volokh Conspiracy (HT: a reader that sent it forward.)  Anderson argues that there are some things about religion that should be a part of the public discourse:

But of course, the problem is how to parse the difference between that which is acceptable for inquiry concerning someone who proposes to lead the polis and what is genuinely personal and irrelevant.  My one regret is that the nasty fireworks at the beginning of that long essay tend to obscure the quite serious argument about how to draw those lines that occupies the second half.  (It is not, by the way, a regret for having ridiculed the two principals — I think that it is important, actually, for people to understand the affective side of this and not pretend that it is purely mild cognition, and that was one way to do it.)  But this issue is going to resurface, certainly with Romney, and with others.  The problem, at its most general, is that religion bears certain characteristics of immutable characteristics, like race or ethnicity — marks of identity that one could not change about oneself, but which — again, like skin color — are morally irrelevant, and so cannot, by themselves, be cause for either accepting or rejecting a person as a political leader in a liberal society.

But religion also has a cognitive content — including doctrines — that are and should be subject to reasoned discussion.  The believer who partakes of them as doctrines of faith might not do that, and might not be able to do that, almost by definition.  Yet it would also be a mistake to draw too sharp a line between things subject to human reason and things not of this world and so not subject to human reason; particularly law-based religions partake of both.  Mormonism, for that matter, incorporates this directly into its prophetic traditions  And despite being a thoroughly lapsed Mormon, and so not in the sense that I would presume instruct Mormons on the doctrines of their faith, but rather as a descriptive statement that I do not believe that the elders of the Church would regard it as an accurate statement of the faith, though of course I might well be corrected on that — I would say that Romney’s statement on this matter is not particularly an accurate reflection of Mormon doctrine.  Mormon doctrine regarding human reason is not, so far as I have been able to comprehend, “relativistic” in the sense used in contemporary ethical argument, even if it is more elastic some (including me) would accept.

But irrespective of whether believers are able to participate in the discussion of human reason and prophetic traditions, when adherents go out to offer leadership in the broader political community, then the unbelievers are perfectly warranted to ask that they be discussed in terms that are accessible to public discussion.

Yes, indeed, religion does have a cognitive element, but unless a candidate or elected official insists on making policy based on their religious conviction, why is it necessary to discuss?  All that is really necessary to discuss is the proposed policy, and the stated reasons for bringing it forward.  The attachment of a religious labels, as with race or gender, to either the proposer or the policy itself serves only to turn the reasoned discussion into the kind of vitriolic posturing that we have seen based on race in the last week.  We have seen some very bad decision making based on such labels and we are seeing the public manipulated based on similar labels – they simply do not aid our public discourse.  If reasoned discussion is the goal and the labels serve to override reason rather than aid it – why inject them into the conversation at all?

I am reminded of a Sunday school class I was in a couple of decades ago – it was being taught at the highest levels by a seminary professor of excellent repute.  We were discussing theories of the atonement and at one point a student rose and asserted that the professor’s view of the atonement was “too masculine.”  I objected in the most strenuous of terms and set forth the proposition that I am emphasizing here today.   The theory of the atonement is neither masculine nor feminine, it simply is truth.  Yes, men and women my arrive at that truth by different paths, but that matters not, what matters is that we arrive at the truth – together.  Inserting the labels serves only to make the truth relativistic.

When it comes to public policy, what matters is that we arrive at the best possible policy.  People will come to their policy choices by a variety of methods and thought processes.  By definition, there cannot be different policy for one group or another – that is the definition of discrimination.  Therefore, group identity entering the discussion serves no purpose other than to prevent arriving at a policy at all, or to arrive at a policy that, rather than providing maximum benefit for the most people, benefits mostly the group that can best claim victimization – again, the very definition of discrimination.

In a week of claim and counterclaim based on race, I am deeply saddened that in many ways our nation is no different than it was when I was a child spending summers with extended family in Jim Crow Mississippi.  But we have clung to our labels too hard.  We have to let go of them.

Lowell adds . . .

Professor Anderson’s Volokh post is remarkable on more than one level.  I do not think it will move the discussion much, because it is mostly impenetrable.  Consider these two statements:

The problem, at its most general, is that religion bears certain characteristics of immutable characteristics, like race or ethnicity — marks of identity that one could not change about oneself, but which — again, like skin color — are morally irrelevant, and so cannot, by themselves, be cause for either accepting or rejecting a person as a political leader in a liberal society. . . .

And despite being a thoroughly lapsed Mormon, and so not in the sense that I would presume instruct [sic] Mormons on the doctrines of their faith, but rather as a descriptive statement that I do not believe that the elders of the Church would regard it as an accurate statement of the faith, though of course I might well be corrected on that — I would say that Romney’s statement on this matter is not particularly an accurate reflection of Mormon doctrine.

Each one of those is a single sentence.  I teach young lawyers that if a sentence must be read more than once by an educated reader to be understood, the writer is in trouble; more than twice, and the sentence should be rewritten.

But enough about style.  Anderson’s post is a dogged argument that it is desirable – nay, necessary and proper - to make a candidate’s most private religious beliefs matters of public discussion and inquiry.  We have rejected that argument on this blog dozens of times, so I won’t rehash those posts.  I’ll simply refer our readers to John Mark Reynolds’ analysis, which John and I think is the perfect approach. Here’s a summary:

Freedom of religion does not mean I have to think every religion or irreligion is great! In fact it is demeaning to religion to behave this way. My Catholic friends know that I think the Pope is not the sole head of the Church and my Baptist friends know I think their view of the Eucharist inadequate. They honor me by strongly disagreeing with me. If I thought these ideas had public policies implications that would lead to bad social policy by the state, I would want to examine the views of any Catholic of Baptist politician.

That is not bigotry, just common sense.

So if we assume religious traditions are, at least in part, knowledge traditions, then being wrong about religion does matter. How wrong does one have to be before losing credibility in the public square?

Let me propose a few tests and suggest that Mormonism easily passes all of them.

First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people and by a group willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner. . . .

Second, the group in question should not have religious claims that will naturally lead to horrific, or at least far out, public policy. . . .

Third, the group should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant. No group is perfect, but the Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings.

If you want to know why Prof. Reynolds thinks Mormonism passes all three tests, read his post.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 9 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The Boston Globe has an almost pathological distaste for Mitt Romney.  So when I ran across this piece, headlined:

Faith still sticky issue as Romney mulls run

I expected the worst.  While there is little doubt in my mind that the Globe intended to stir up trouble on an issue that has been largely laying dormant of late, the piece itself is not pure hit piece, which is surprising.  There are a couple of good take-aways from it:

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Reading List, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

John and I feel somewhat validated – but not at all surprised – by this report of a scholar’s analysis of Romney and religion in the 2008 presidential election cycle.

The paper, entitled “Mitt Romney’s Religion: A Five Factor Model for Analysis of Media Representation of Mormon Identity,” appeared in the May issue of The Journal of Media and Religion. This paragraph will bring a smile to those who’ve followed this blog for a while:

For many, the combination of Mormonism and Romney’s ‘flip-flops’ on many hot-button issues gave reason to oppose him. Conservative activist Brian Camenker’s report on Romney’s shifting positions gave ammunition to conservatives to withdraw support from Romney. Vanderbilt University researchers found Romney’s flip-flopper label was an easy cover for anti-Mormonism. In the end, it was the rise of Huckabee and the political primaries in the evangelical-dominated South that derailed Romney’s bid for the presidency. For many, Romney’s run represented a misguided attempt to curry the favor of evangelicals.

That almost makes me think Professor Baker is also a regular reader here. (Seriously, with this paper she has moved to the top of my list of “People I’d Like to Have Lunch With.”)

Here is the article abstract from The Journal of Media and Religion (it costs $30 to see the entire piece):

Mitt Romney’s religion accounted for 50% of all religion-related presidential primary campaign stories in 2007, and 30% of Romney’s total media coverage focused on his Mormon faith. This article reviews that coverage and considers it within the larger historical context of the complex relationship between media and Mormonism throughout the 180-year history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A factorial model (the first in the area of Mormon Media Studies) is proposed by which to document and analyze the wider societal influences that are reflected in media representation of Mormon identity. The model’s 5 factors include the media, the Mormons, other religions, secular influences, and politics/government. The model assumes an interrelationship among the five factors. Factor influence and relationships among factors vary according to time, issue, and circumstance. The model relates to informational (not entertainment) media. Suggestions are made for application of the model to academic studies.

As I jokingly note above, we documented and analyzed all of this as it occurred.  If you’re interested and want to save $30, be sure to read our “Telling The Story” series for our version of this same tale, minus the Smoot comparisons, which we examined in our five-part series reviewing and commenting on Kathleen Flake’s book “The Politics of American Religious Identity.”  You may recall that Flake’s book was about the Smoot seating hearings.  You can find our posts about that here - here – here – here and here.

John Jumps On Board…

..Because The Huckabee “boomlet” has become a “Boom?!”

In the words of Jacob McCandles when confronted with rumors of his death: “Not hardly.“  Here’s how this went down.  Huckabee did Fox News Sunday last Sunday.  If you read the transcript, this is what he says:

I haven’t closed the door. I think that would be foolish on my part, especially when poll after poll shows that there is strong sentiment out there. I end up leading a lot of the polls. I’m the Republican that clearly, at this point, does better against Obama than any other Republican. You know, I’m not totally unaware of that.

At which point the MSM and leftie blogs went ape – The Hill – HuffPo – Politics Daily – The Fix – USAToday – one very right wing outlet sounded the trumpets – News Max.  His home town paper was a bit less impressed.

Let’s analyze what’s really happening here.  Fox commentator Huckabee appears on FNS in a short segment.  That sounds more like a promotional appearance than a serious interview to me.  The idea was to generate some heat for Huckabee’s show and based on the coverage, I think they got it.  Secondly, Huckabee is prone to exaggerated claims.  He still claims to have finished “second” in the 2008 primary race despite the fact the delegate count, and his speaking slot at the convention, clearly indicate to the contrary, even though he stayed in the race far longer than the actual second place finisher – Romney.

Huckabee is a media guy now – he has speaking fees to maintain, and his bread-and-butter constituency is not what it used to be.  The Huckster needs the possibility of a run to continue to make a living.  And of course, the MSM and non-team players are always willing to stir the pot on our side.

There’s a lot of coverage here, but no meat on the bones.  Call me when Huck’s fundraising gets better and he loses at least 60 pounds, until then its all posturing for ratings and fees.

UPDATE (7 hours after initial publication) – Told ya so! I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet….  Back to the initial post.

And Speaking of Lefties Doing Some Pot Stirring…

What do you think Marc Ambinder is up to with this piece?  [Lowell interjects:  I do not like his suggestion that Iowa and New Hampshire just be allowed to go ahead with their February primaries.   Why should those two quirky, small states, whose voting is so easily manipulated, be allowed to set the tone for the entire campaign?]

Mormon Stuff…

This is silly, and discriminatory – CNBC covering “Mormon” business.  Most business school graduates prefer to hire grads of the same business school,  Nothing to see here.

This is just great read.  Would that other forms of Christianity were as open minded.

Here’s another one with idiot commenters.  Why someone has to turn that story into a religio-political comment is beyond.

General Religion Stuff…

This is so utterly simplistic as to be annoying.  (In fact it is self-contradictory, but it is not worth the effort to demonstrate that fully here.)  One can judge a candidate’s character, or stance on issues, without reference to religion.  Religion does indeed influence those things, but it is not wholly determinative.  When you drag religion into it, it indeed starts to get about “us” and “them” instead of about the issues at hand.  And that leads to unnecessary conflict.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Telling The Story, The Speech | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Last week, there was quite the discussion around these parts, levered off of the now infamous Joel Belz “Mormons lie” contention from last cycle.  We have not covered it extensively, but Belz was buried with bigotry charges after he published it.  But like a trouper he came back for more the next month in his magazine, defending his analysis and contending that it was not bigotry.  We had thought his argument so weak that refutation was not required, but given the discussion of last week, we figure that a refutation is now in order.

The first part of Belz’ argument:

Or suppose that Christopher Hitchens, the popular and often appealing atheist who has taken some quarters of the nation by storm, decided he wanted to seek the presidency. It’s pretty clear that his candidacy, if he had been born in the United States, could not (and should not) be opposed on legal grounds. But to say that individuals and groups of individuals would be guilty of bigotry if they argued openly against an atheist as president is wrongheaded on the face of the matter.

So if it’s legitimate to oppose (but not legally preclude) a candidate because he or she is a committed Muslim or atheist, I conclude we may do the same with someone because he or she is a Mormon, a Roman Catholic, a Baptist, or goodness—even a Presbyterian! And in none of these cases are we automatically guilty of bigotry.

First of all, that’s not an argument – it’s an assertion.  Would I oppose a Hitchens candidacy?  Yes, I would – but not on the basis of his atheism.  More on that in a moment.  Why is it “wrongheaded on the face of the matter?”  If Belz had a real argument here, he would have made some attempt to answer that question as he asserted his point. Instead, he just waved his hands and said, “Voila.”  (Back in my days of studying science and math we called this the “it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer” argument – it typically warranted the loss of a letter grade if the assertion was correct and an automatic ‘F’ if it was used out of laziness, or wrong.)

As to the legality/legitimacy argument, well, that sounds remarkably like Jim Crow.  From the Civil War well until into the 1970’s blacks using their franchise was widely and openly opposed, and claims of legitimacy were attached to such activities.  Of course, people can claim that religion and race are very different things – but it seems to me that in a very real sense both are shapers and maintainers of culture, or at least sub-culture.  And in the end that is what we are discriminating against – sub-culture – and in the melting pot that is America such is not legitimate along any lines.

But let’s look at Belz’ “argument” a bit deeper.  He argues

Indeed, his very thoughtfulness makes me want to be very careful when I raise the question: How does a person’s Mormonism affect his or her possible role as president of the United States?

But just because I’m obliged to ask the question carefully doesn’t mean I’m out of bounds in asking the question. I applauded when Romney stressed: “[Some] would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do.” Nor should he; that is part of his personal character.

But this integral and holistic nature of the person is also exactly what makes it not just right, but necessary, to ask—even in detail—just how what this man believes “religiously” affects all the rest of his behavior.

When we linked to this piece in our review of 2008, we said this about it:

I am going to sound very much like a civil rights attorney here, but this justification for bigotry is bigoted on its face.  It presumes a view of religion and its effects on a person and their character that is distinctly evangelical, and one that another religion may not, and many do not, share.  I will not speak for Mormons on this matter, that is for them to do, but what I will say is that we cannot measure another religion by our religion’s yardstick.  Needless to say, no religion other than our own will “measure up” under such circumstance.

Further “fisking,” there are two key words in Belz’ argument – and we highlighted them for you, “person” and “behavior.”

Whether it be Mormonism, or any other religion, how that religion would affect an individual person’s role as POTUS, or anything else, is going to be individually unique.  I am very different from any other Presbyterian I know.  My Presbyterianism affects me very differently than it does my pastor, or the other elders in my congregation.  One cannot draw a conclusion about how being a Presbyterian will affect another persons role as say, blogger, based on how it affects mine.  In the blogroll section of my religious blog there is a ‘ring’ of Presbyterian bloggers.  Anyone who doubts my contention here needs but to read through that ring.  You would be hard pressed to find a more diverse group.

Thus, how religion affects behavior is highly individualized.  So while we might, in the case of a single individual, be able to analyze how their faith affects there behavior, the real question becomes why do so?  What do we gain out of such analysis that we did not already know?  We cannot conclude, based on that analysis, anything about the behavior or belief of any other adherent to that religion.  To do so would, in fact, be religious discrimination and bigotry.

The issue boils down to simply, behavior.  Fortunately, behavior is something we can judge based on physical, real evidence, not simply beliefs.  Beliefs are the means by which people who behave badly justify that behavior to themselves, but there are many many people of the same belief, even the same evil belief, that never can actually bring themselves to behave badly.

My father is dead, and I hate to speak ill of the dead and I loved the man more than virtually anyone but my wife; but my father had an amazing streak of bizarre thought in him.  There were times, around the dinner table, when you would have thought my father was a Nazi.  He certainly implied more than once that many of the Jews that died in the concentration camps of WWII deserved their fate.  And yet, when it came to his behavior, my father was a kitten.  He routinely did business with Jewish people – some of whom showed up at his funeral.  I never saw my father speak an ill word to anyone to their face, and frankly never behind their back about someone specific – it was always just awful, ugly generalities.

My father’s beliefs about Jewish people never translated into behavior.  My father was an “anti-Semite” in speech only and then only to people with whom he felt safe somehow.   So much so that most of the Jewish people he actually encountered considered him a friend (none of the them considered him an enemy) – even the legitimate “jury” could not bring itself to find my father guilty.  In the end, those of us closest to my dad, most importantly my mother and I, concluded that dad was not anti-Semitic at all, but rather someone that just liked to say outrageous things in certain social settings when he thought they were boring or he wanted attention.

The point is that we can infer nothing about a persons behavior based on their proclaimed belief, we can only infer about their behavior based on their behavior – real, physical evidence.  That is to say we infer character from action, not declaration.

Thus, if Belz wants to argue that Mitt Romney is a liar, all he need do is bring forth evidence of Romney lying.  He does not need to bring up Romney’s faith for we can conclude nothing reliable from it.  In bringing up Romney’s faith, Belz can accomplish only two things.  For one, he can play upon the prejudices of his readers.  If his readers are suspicious of Mormons, by bringing up that Romney is one, he plays on those suspicions and they will tend to view evidence insufficient to prove his contention as if it does actually prove it.  That is, I believe, called “false witness.”  Secondly, he tarnishes all Mormons, which in a religiously competitive environment he may want to do.  But that first of all is simply wrong, because as we have seen, not all Mormons are the same regardless of the characteristic under discussion – so even his competitive argument is not true (again “false witness”).  But further he affects the candidacy of an individual for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the election at hand.  This has the potential affect of robbing the nation of the best choice in that election when judged on the things that do matter.  The same could be said by liberal efforts to disqualify Huckabee based on his tenure as a Baptist preacher.

In the end, there just really is little need to bring up the religion of a candidate.  Their behavior and character is in actual evidence – and that evidence is what matters.

What We’re Reading . . .

Last week was the lightest week we’ve seen in a while, so we’ll just pass it on as bullets.

• Belz does have some people that agree with him, although they are a bit kinder about it.
• There are also some very ugly people that try to play on the same prejudices that Belz does.  Frankly, this is a third effect from Belz’ invocation of Romney’s faith – it divides those of us on the one side of an issue therefore aiding the opposition.  (BTW, can any of our Mormon readers explain why a phone call from Romney to the CJCLDS leadership would matter any more than any other Mormon’s call on matters of doctrine?)
• You have to love this – someone gets into the latest Beck business and never mentions that he is Mormon, in fact lumps him with “regular” Christians.
• This is a difficult political puzzle – especially when religion gets into the mix.
• The rumors, turned whispers is now pretty much out loud talk.
• In re: Romney – CNN tries to make a mountain out of a molehill — he still has good friends — and allies.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Reading List, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

There is no surer sign of the Democrats’ increasingly tenuous grip on power than the fact that they are trying to spin Scott Brown’s (R) incredible victory for the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy’s death as problematic for Mitt Romney.  We first noted the spin on Politico early Monday morning.  In the wake of the election Investor’s Business Daily tried to point out how it was big for Romney, and yet the first comment on that post tried to show it as a downer for him.  Fortunately, other commenters quickly pointed out the error of that commenter’s ways.

Funny though . . . Romney was on the dais at Brown’s victory speech and Brown called him forward for thanks – the first call after his family.  Do you need other facts?  Calling this “spin” is actually being kind.  Romney played this just right – he was an enormous amount of help to the Brown campaign.  Cash from Free and Strong America was just the beginning – staff was loaned.  Let’s face it, there is no such thing as a Republican “machine” in a place like Massachusetts, but given that he came closer to beating Ted Kennedy than anybody and got elected governor there, Romney comes as close to having one as possible.  No Republican could have pulled this off without him.  But despite that, Romney stayed, as far as coverage was concerned “in the background.”  This was Scott Brown’s campaign, not Mitt Romney’s.

And that points out the huge difference between this administration and a possible Romney one.  This president enters the room and he insists that the spotlight shine on him.  When he went to Massachusetts to stump for Coakley, he sucked all the oxygen out of the room.   Romney did far more for Brown than Obama even thought of doing for Coakley, and yet he did it in a way that left the spotlight on Brown.  Service, not ego, was what mattered here.

And that seems to me the heart of where religion and politics intersect.  Good religion, regardless of theology, makes us better people – it makes us people of service and goodwill, not self-service and personal will.

Lowell adds . . .

Romney played this one very well.  Ed Carson at Investor’s Business Daily:

“Ex-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was . . . a key backer of the little-known state senator [Scott Brown] back when he was seen as a sacrificial lamb.

“While some are already touting Brown as a 2012 presidential contender, Romney could be the big beneficiary. He’s helped deliver the 41st GOP Senate vote, perhaps derailing Obamacare. Activists will remember that.”

I think so too.

John Updates The Next Morning…

Here from the local Massachusetts press is a recount of what went on in Brown’s suite as news of his victory spread.  Key ‘graphs for our thesis above:

He said he’s been “calling everybody I know, doing everything I can to make sure Scott Brown won. Finally we can tell Washington, ‘We want you to listen.”‘As 10 p.m. approached, and Brown prepared to go down to the crowded ballroom to give his victory speech, former presidential candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney looked over his speech of introduction for Brown. “This is heroic,” he said of Brown’s win. “It wasn’t expected that he would have a victory this big.”

With everyone piling out of the room to head downstairs, Ayla smiled, sending an affectionate glance toward her dad as he consulted withRomney.

Romney did introduce Brown at the victory celebration.  A sure sign that he was key to the campaign.  And yet, no mention of that on TV coverage last night (Even Fox which is what I watched) and when Brown thanked Romney, he had to step from way back in the crowd to receive Brown’s handshake.  So far back I did not spot him until he came forward – unlike the unmistakable visage of Doug Flutie and other Massachusetts luminaries.

And it was former (perhaps to be again?) senior adviser to Romney’s presidential campaign, Kevin Madden that had an op-ed in the WSJ this AM:

Republicans could easily recline and leave Mr. Obama and the Democrats to self-destruct. Majority status and control of Congress is conceivably in reach just by reminding voters you can’t blame Republicans for Washington’s current appetite for excess, since Democrats are in control of this mess. It would be a safe maneuver because it’s true.

However, for Republicans the progression from malcontent to sustainable movement involves learning from President Obama’s mistakes. Unlike Mr. Obama, the party can go beyond ideals and process ideas that deliver an actual reformist agenda. The party can prove to a disaffected public that we stand for more than just winning elections but instead are dedicated to reforming a broken system and governing a nation with public support. A Republican Party that avoids the same shortsightedness and reflexive partisanship that has defined President Obama’s first year in office will be one truly deserving of majority status and deliver on the promise of a remade America currently eluding Mr. Obama.

That sounds like the map for 2010 and beyond to me!

And on a final sad note, this “tweet” passed through our little twitter monitor at right this morning:

OMG Romney is on stage with Brown lapping up the victory. This is a nightmare. The Mormon takeover.

We certainly hope you all are taking our advice and actively engaging in comment “policing.”  See “Online Activism” above.  You might want to set up a Twitter account.  After all tweets are just comments without context.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post