First, watch this JibJab cartoon, if you haven’t already. If you’re like me, you’ll laugh out loud and find your mood unexpectedly improved.

Now: Pickings are a little slim these days, it being the dog days of summer and all. (I’m in Washington today, and “dog days” certainly describes the weather.) But there is still a little going on:

Jonathan Martin reports, in one of those anecdotal pieces we dislike so much, that “the reason McCain is garnering less enthusiasm than President Bush [is that] talking about his personal faith is not something he’s comfortable with.”

(Emphasis added.) A plague on all their houses. First, on Martin’s house: His story is based on another story, which is in turn based on yet another set of “person in the street” interviews. Note to journalists: Those anecdotal interviews tell us nothing. Nada. Zilch. They reflect your laziness. They do make good reads, however.

Second, consider this “person in the street” view, as reported by Martin:

SIOUX CENTER, Iowa (AP) — Stirring her morning coffee, lifelong Republican Grace Droog voiced her doubts — and those of many evangelical voters — about what she isn’t hearing from John McCain in this year’s presidential election.

“I look for something about his faith,” she said. “It’s very important, it’s what our nation was founded on.”

Her pal Joan Rens nodded; she, too, wants McCain to talk about his religious beliefs. “I wish he would so we would know how he stands on his religious views and where his faith lies,” she said.

This makes me want to scream. Are you as tired of this approach to voting as I am? Is that all it takes — a candidate must talk about his religious beliefs a lot, even if it’s the social justice religio-babble of an Obama? Please.

(I was just kidding about the plague, by the way.)

And . . . why, pray tell, is Iowa supposed to be such a bellweather for voter sentiment?

For a more forward-looking approach, here’s an interesting e-mailer to K-Lo at NRO:

Evangelicals are going through a massive political identity crisis right now and should not, absolutely should not, be courted according to some outdated pre-2004 model. We are too disjointed right now for our collective views to be a determining factor, especially as doing so would alienate other voting groups.

Read the whole thing, and enjoy your weekend!
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

McCain appears to be getting serious about Veep selection and Romney is high atop the list. (What?  No Huckabee? NO SURPRISE.)  So the punditry is full of evaluations.  Here is Jonathan Martin’s and here’s a bit of a WSJ survey of commentary.  The words “religion” and “Mormon” appear nowhere in any of this?  I don’t think there was a single evaluation of Romney’s chances for the #1 slot that did not mention it.

(Lowell interjects:  Well, Jonathan Martin does mention it in passing among the “cons” of selecting Romney:

Yet for all his energy, Romney demonstrated trouble connecting with voters during the primary. His Mormonism was plainly a problem among some religious conservatives.

So the punditry is not ignoring The Question just yet.)

Questions:  Is this because the Veep slot just is not that serious? Did the primary campaign create an inoculation effect?  Would it not have been a serious issue in the primary absent Huckabee?  Will we hear from Evangelical leaders over the weekend?  Will anyone make something out of the proximate location of McCain’s weekend place to the Jello Belt?

If Romney is selected, more questions: Will The Question arise at a serious level?  Who will raise it?  There is little love between McCain and Evangelicals, though there appears to be resigned toleration at this point.  Would this cause Evangelicals to sit this one out?  How could Romney best be deployed in the campaign?  What will we hear first “Mormon” or “black liberation theology”?  Who will be the first to charge a potential Mormon assassination plot to gain the presidency? (Oh, it will happen somewhere in the deep ugly bowels of the Internet . . . .)

It could be an interesting long weekend.  We’ll post if something breaks, otherwise, enjoy the weekend.  We have turned off comment screening so our faithful readers can contemplate these questions and many more.

Oh Yeah…

There were a couple of interesting religion and politics articles yesterday.  This one on the California Supreme Court gay marriage decision and this one on an IRS ruling.
Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Heck - Where The Coverage?

Clinton and Obama stood up for something called “The Compassion Forum” over the weekend. In some ways the thing bordered on a religious debate considering, for example, questions about why God allows suffering. More to the point it was an attempt to can religious credibility for Democratic candidates. A fact which, I think, accounts for the lack of serious coverage. Here is coverage from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the NYTimes. I did find one interesting commentary post.

Now imagine for a minute, if you will, a similar forum for Republicans. There would be massive coverage, all spun to make it look like Republicans were close-minded religious automatons. In the primary cycle now complete, there would have also been massive efforts to compare and contrast Romney’s views as a Mormon with the views of more mainstream Christians.

Had this event happened with Republicans, we would have been treated to endless commentary, blogging, TV discussions, etc. on how religion cannot creep too much into the public square - yet this event featured discussions of religion and religious issues in depths that Republicans would routinely refuse to answer - well, save for Huckabee who never passed up a religious question. What is amazingly outrageous is that Democrats who, for several decades, have decried the role of religion in politics - worked tirelessly to eliminate all mention of religion in a public setting - here invoked it on levels that Republicans could never contemplate.

I think this bespeaks an important point: Religion is a political hot potato and moderation in its discussion is key. With the Republicans apparently employing a religious test in the primary, this sort of discussion amongst the Democrats begins to look moderate. While they discussed the metaphysical and theological on levels we would never go near, they did talk about unity and diversity and community.

Our nation loves its religion when it builds bridges, but hates it when it builds walls. The Republican primary appeared to build a wall and the Democrats are not hesitating to capitalize on it. And what is worse, is this version of religiosity is not one that Republicans would agree with much when it comes down to policy. And so, once again, by applying a religious test, even if only amongst individual voters in the voting booth, we have limited our ability to get the policies we want, not enhanced it.

Oops . . .

Lowell jumps in:

I found the Democrats’ behavior in the Compassion Forum fascinating. (I understand McCain was invited but declined to attend. A wise decision, I think.) It makes me wonder if conservatives have a better substantive message, but lousy delivery.

Predictably, the religion Obama and Clinton professed Sunday was the “social gospel” type: Government is a means to deliver the charity taught in the Scriptures. As John notes, the MSM treated the event and its content as totally unremarkable.

I am wondering (worrying) that the Democrats’ religious “message” might be more appealing to the general public than the social conservative/values voter message we saw in the GOP primaries, which was largely driven by Evangelical and like-minded voters. I also worry that Huckabee-style overt religiosity will repel voters to whom the social gospel simply feels better. I am taking about people who are more interested in being made to feel comfortable by vague notions of a kind and benevolent government.

Finally, I worry that although most people probably like the more conservative, values-voter views about the big issues– i.e., the content of the message– most people also prefer a less strident tone. If that’s true, then conservatives win on debating points, but lose on style and delivery.

Speaking of which…

Obama’s “bitterness” gaffe is not playing well when it comes to the Dems’ attempts to garner a religious sheen. Which means we may have the opportunity to recover the high ground before it is all said and done, but we need to get about the business of digesting the lessons of the primary.

More On The Religiously Mute McCain . . .

This time from the Washington Times. And you know, given the analysis just completed, I am wondering if such muteness does not go a long way to explain the Republican primary results - not to mention bode well in the general with Obama’s problems.
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

This past weekend has seen two stories evolve that illustrate to me that the American people may be willful, sometimes bigoted, often prejudiced; they can be narrow minded and sometimes thoughtless, but they are not dumb.

The first story concerns Obama’s “small town” comments of last week. I was offended by the reflection of Karl Marx and the denigration of religion inherent in the comments. As the outrage has evolved through the weekend, it is more about the insult offered small town America than it is intellectual vapidity, but outrage has emerged nonetheless. America gets it when they are being played for dumb, and they do not like it.

The other story that reflects the general intelligence of the American public is the raiding of the Warren Jeff’s polygamous compound in Texas of several days ago and the ensuing coverage. That story is better than 10 days old now and this post from a very small blog is the first one I have seen that even attempted to make any Mitt Romney related political comment out of it. Of course it is in the negative, and wrongly so.

The press coverage of the Texas events has been uneven in terms of its identification of the compound as “Mormon,” “breakaway,” or simply labeling it “polygamous sect,” but it seems clear to me that most Americans have gotten the message that this bust has little to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and certainly that is has nothing to do with Mitt Romney.

Interestingly, anti-Mormon sentiment was an undeniable factor in the primary campaign. I have always thought the root of that sentiment was ignorance about what the modern CJCLDS looks like. There does appear to be more at play than that.
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

This blog often defies characterization.  We seem liberal to the extent that we want to lessen religio-speak in campaigns, at least from their current levels, but we are rock solid conservative when it comes to our values.  To meet our mission we have even defended the right of Obama’s pastor to make his abysmal statements , even though he makes many purely political statements under the guise of religion.  But there are limits.

Those of us that remember the dark days of potential world-wide communist domination remember one of Marx’s fundamental maxims: “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”  Marx is long dead, as is communism in large part, but that idea survives today and defines the hard left.  Which means that Barak Obama defined himself yesterday when he said:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

If that is not a restatement of the Marxist ideal, I do not know what is!  Worse yet, it is the antithesis of the America ideal for religion and politics.  In this statement Obama, literally sees government as the true savior and religion as the false substitute.  I need to take a deep breath here.

It is hard to know where to begin with something like this.  This statement is so charged, and so wrong on so many levels (philosophically, historically, theologically, constitutionally. . .) that I could go on for hours.   It is the weekend and I do not want to get that deep.  Fortunately, this mode of thought has been so analyzed over the last century precisely because of Marx that if you google around a bit, you will read everything you need and even more you don’t.

I will limit my brief comments to political.  We shall here discover whether Obama really is the press’ golden boy.  If this statement stays under-reported and does not reach the general public in overdoses, we can conclude that the media is in the bag for him.  You know all that stuff we have been looking at here over the last couple of years about liberal Evangelicals and Democrats wooing the religious vote, and so forth.  Well, that all should, at this point, be swirling the bowl.

Even the religious left believe their faith is real and valuable, not merely a substitute for government, not some construct designed to mollify an otherwise dissatisfied citizenry.

This statement is also fascinating on a social/cultural level and it ties in deeply with whole Oprah phenomena, but I don’t want to get into that right now.  Think about it though.

Spread the word on this one, dear reader.  A McCain presidency looks more likely every time you do.  And frankly, while Mr. McCain was not my personal choice in nominees, he is looking better and better by the minute with opposition like this.

Lowell adds:  The problem is, the majority of the legacy news media sees “the heartland” the same way Obama does.  It will be interesting to see how the story is played.
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

APOLOGY

A formal justification or defense.

Now that it is all over in terms of Romney’s presidential candidacy, I want to take a little time and explain myself. We have endeavored on this blog to be factual and reasonable, and struggled as best as possible to keep personal feeling, and religious expression, out of the argument. We did so because that is the way we thought this issue should be approached.

I have, however, been involved in enough “conversations” over the last couple of years that were anything but reasonable, so what I am going to offer here is is a more personal and heartfelt discussion than is typical for this blog. I ask our audience’s indulgence. I want to make three essential arguments.

The “Christian” Question

If any one thing has landed me in hot water with my orthodox Christian brethren more than any other, it is my willingness to call Mormons “Christian” - albeit with adjectives attached. As someone formally trained for Christian ministry, that is to say having attended seminary, I seem to attract special criticism since “I should know better.”

Indeed I do, were I in seminary class, I would certainly know not to refer to Mormons as “Christian;” it would be a fast road to a low grade. But such definitional insistence is a small part of what is the largest lesson I learned in seminary. We are not nearly as smart as we think we are.

Now don’t get me wrong, every capable Christian needs to put as much energy as possible into a rational, thoughtful and deep understanding of their faith. But after spending many years pursuing that, and being very confident in my personal deeply Calvinistic leanings, I have found that they are, in terms of what I expect from my religion, incomplete. There simply is a whole heck of a lot more to this thing than just the intellectual formulations of what I believe.

To put it slightly differently, we are finite created beings of limited capability. God is infinite, creative, and ultimately beyond my capability to understand. Therefore, while I am to study and be confident, that must be tempered with the limitations of my capabilities. God can decide to let someone into heaven whether they meet the criteria I have established or not - in the end it is His decision, not mine. Humility is the order of the day.

The term “Christian” is, obviously derived from the term “Christ.” Technically, “Christ” is an office or title, not the name of a historical figure. In strictest terms, to be a “Christian” one must simply believe that the messianic prophecies of Jewish tradition have been fulfilled. Again, in the strictest of terms, you do not even have to think Jesus of Nazareth is “the Christ,” you just have to think someone was. Well, Mormons not only believe that the messiah has come, they, like me, believe he was Jesus of Nazareth.

This is where it starts to get a little trickier. Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. He was a real person that walked on the planet, and there was only one. Therefore, all the discussion about “they worship a different Jesus than we do,” just does not make any sense. That is a statement rooted in our intellectual understanding of who Jesus is, NOT any historical fact. In fact, such an assertion places the theology ahead of the history - and yet, the historical fact of Jesus is the only thing that gives the gospel narrative any actual meaning - otherwise it is just a story.

Now it is true, Mormons have a very different understanding about the historical figure of Jesus than we do. But they believe the same historical figure was the messiah that I do. That is sufficient to qualify for the term “Christian.” Any other assertion lacks the humility that my seminary education mandated of me.

I strongly believe that adjectives are a necessary addition to the term “Christian” because of our radically different assertions about Jesus. To put it metaphorically, Mormons are in the family, but they are cousins, not brothers and sisters. But this also means they are to be accorded the respect, affection, and welcome of family. We may not be intimate, but we are related.

When it comes to this argument, I cannot help but note that Jesus spent His time with publicans and sinners, and generally avoided the company of the religious officialdom of the day. You see the officials were busy arguing about whether it was a sin to heal the lame on Sunday. Perhaps an interesting question, but Jesus found it a bit silly when confronted with a lame person that needed healing. He just did the job.

Bigotry Hurts The Bigot Far More Than The Object Of The Bigotry

I am not one of those “Love everybody equally, we are all God’s children types.” There is such a thing as evil and it is to be despised, hated, and destroyed. There is such a thing as just anger. “Anger is unChristian” is just liberal claptrap. But it is an idea rooted in truth, but carried to an extreme.

Negative emotion - anger, hatred, fear - are destructive when they are not based in reality. Those emotions were created in us and they are reflective of God’s image in us. But if we are afraid when there is nothing truly to fear, the fear rots our souls. If we are angry when we have not truly been wronged, the anger is a destructive force on our own minds. If we hate that which is not truly evil, then the hatred eats us from the inside out.

“Bigotry” is a term used when negative emotions such as hatred or loathing are aimed at people that are not truly deserving. The classic example, of course, is the historical treatment of people of dark skin color. Their only “crime” was to be black. We aimed our negative emotion at them for the silliest of reasons, skin color.

When it comes to Mormons the essential question is, “Are they worthy of our negative emotions?” If they are not, then the animus we see so often against them from orthodox Christian circles is a destructive force inside of those circles. As I see it, the negative emotion from traditional Christians towards Mormons is rooted in three basic areas. The first is the belief that Mormon doctrine is a “perversion.” The second is fear of the historical artifact of Mormon polygamous practice. The third is territorial.

The perversion argument is just silly. They are, in my belief and understanding, wrong, but that is very different from perverse. If one were to devise some sort of scale of wrongness Mormons would be a lot more wrong about their beliefs than say Pentecostals who I also believe get quite a bit wrong, but it is still just wrong. The term perversion is usually justified by the claim that Mormons lead people down a “false path.” Well, so do a lot of other sects that I think are wrong, it is always a “false path” unless it is my path. Nope, this argument is trotted out as intellectual cover for the deeper emotional responses.

Polygamous practice WAS a justification for prosecution, not persecution which is what happened, but prosecution against Mormons. I think polygamy is a destructive practice to the foundations of our society. But they don’t do it any more. It is artifact, not fact, history, not current. We can no more hold it against them now than the Muslims can hold the Crusades against us.

Sadly, because the persecution of polygamous Mormons resulted in their migration west (Who knows how they would have reacted had they simply been prosecuted under the laws of the land, which is what would have been the proper response) and the Mormon migration is such a hugely significant factor in the development of our nation, the Mormon polygamous past will always remain a front and center historical lesson taught Americans. We just need to learn to tell the difference between history and now.

But it is fear of competition that I think really underlies the negative emotion that is aimed at Mormons. We are in a battle for converts, it is as simple as that. How does one win such a battle? Well, when you have factors like historical polygamy at play, delegitimizing your competition can be a pretty effective means.

There is only one problem, such delegitimization involves stirring up all those negative emotions and when they are unfounded, as they are in this case, they are a rot, not a tool. Therefore, I see this as no way to win this argument.

This is a more philosophical and emotional form of the same argument I have made from the beginning of this blog. If Evangelicals did not vote for Romney solely on the basis of his religious affiliation, they were serving only to squelch their own political voice.

Competition In One Field - Cooperation In Another

The other problem with the whole delegitimization thing is that it requires one demonize one’s competition - one eliminates the possibility of making an ally of them in situations where such an alliance might be useful.

Consulting, the business I am in, is a funny business. Your product is your knowledge. Sharing that knowledge is, in essence, giving your product away. In my career I am often asked to participate, voluntarily, in industry associations, something that gives an entire industry the benefit of my knowledge without compensation. But here is what I have learned. In working in those association, I build alliances that would call on me for compensated work a other times. What appears to be a little short term business loss, has resulted in some extraordinary long term gains.

Also, consider that the members of such associations are business competitors. They are all trying to sell the same widgets to the same customer base. What is in it for them to help their competition? The answer is straightforward - there are many areas where cooperation makes better business for both of them. For example. working with your competition to defeat a tariff bill results in lower cost raw materials for both of you, increasing both companies profitability. Moreover, if only one of you worked the tariff bill, what is to prevent them from making tariffs apply when you import, but not them? Now cooperation looks even more necessary, doesn’t it?

And that, in the end, is the bottom line when it comes to my actions in this election cycle. I am in religious competition with Mormons. To all my Mormon friends and readers, I pray for you daily and hope you will convert - as I am sure you do for me. But there is much mutual benefit that we can recognize from political cooperation.

This blog has never been, and never will be as long as I am associated with it, about justifying Mormonism, or traditional Christianity for that matter. It is about political cooperation between the two religions - for that I do not need to apologize.
Sphere: Related Content

6 Comments »