I have mentioned on several occasions what may come as a shock to some - there is a whole world out there of “God-bloggers.” These are people that write about religion all the time. The “Godblogosphere” can be broken down, much like the church, into denominational/philosophical segments. There is a large Roman Catholic contingent, a fascinating Orthodox contingent, a Protestant contingent - there is even a Mormon contingent, but like most things religious in the nation, the biggest players are the Evangelicals, who cut across many of the other lines I have just drawn.

Two of the biggest players in the evangelical portion of the Godblogosphere are “Evangelical Outpost” (this is Joe Carter of Family Research Council and Huckabee campaign fame, at least to regular readers of this blog) and “Pyromaniacs,” a group blog led by Phil Johnson, who runs the broadcast arm of John MacArthur’s ministry.

These two are debating about Evangelical political action.

It started when Phil said:

Personally, I think the tendency to seek legislative remedies for every social ill is one of the absolute worst tendencies of contemporary secular society, and it disturbs me greatly to see Christians more or less follow that pattern blindly.

We need to remember that political clout has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual power.

These statements drew enough reaction that Phil expanded his comments in a new post:

I thank God for Christians whose vocation is to serve faithfully in our government—from people like my third son (who is a police officer) to those elected officials who are devoted Christians. I also have no objection to Christian bloggers who deal with political subjects. I read some of those blogs myself, and I often benefit from their insights.

But let’s be clear, here: The church as a body has no calling to organize and protest in the political realm. Moreover, government service and political campaigning are different vocations from the calling of a pastor. It’s well-nigh impossible to be a good pastor full time if you also fancy yourself a political lobbyist.

Phil’s expanded comments drew a number of factual corrections from Joe Carter. Joe makes a number of points, but his essential thesis is:

Contrary to what many secularists claim–and many Christians believe–we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, especially in an election season. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities–lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.–would be difficult to support with actual evidence.

In some cases these two are arguing past each other. Phil is primarily a pastor and he is making pastoral points. Joe, on the other hand, a guy whose job it is is to get as many Evangelicals politically active as possible, is frustrated by something that is a fact of life with almost any demographic group.

It is difficult to know where to put a stake into all of this and start to comment. While Joe is right in some of the factual corrections he makes about Phil’s post, he almost entirely misses Phil’s primary point which is a terribly important one, and one that I agree with fully.

There are some important points that have not come up in all of this. I would love to see a word association poll about Evangelicals. I am willing to bet that on a national basis, most people would associate first and foremost “conservative politics” with the word “evangelical.” (In Utah, the primary association is likely to be highly uncomplimentary, but I think that is somewhat understandable.)

In point of fact, the African-American church (as we have seen vividly in recent weeks - word association - “civil rights”) and Evangelicals are virtually the only religious groups that undertake direct political activism of any sort, or to any extent in the U.S. The remaining groups, an admitted minority, take a view very similar to that we looked at from Roman Catholic Bishop Charles Chaput yesterday:

It is the job of Catholic laypeople to change the thinking of their political party and their political leaders with the tools of their Catholic faith. But it is the job of priests to give people those tools—to form Catholic laypeople to think and act as disciples of Jesus Christ, in a manner guided by the teaching of the Church. Just as Catholic laypeople should be the leaven of Jesus Christ in the public square, so we priests need to be the leaven of Jesus Christ in lives of our people. [Emphasis added.]

Simply put, the church’s job is to shape people who then do politics.

It should also be mentioned that there are two ways to end abortion. One is to overturn Roe v. Wade. The other is to sufficiently evangelize the country so that demand for abortion simply ceases. And the fact of the matter is, as long as a majority of Americans want abortion in some form, Roe v. Wade will stand. Thus doing evangelism, which is the only effective way I can think of to reduce the demand for abortion, is necessary for political effectiveness to ever exist when it comes to the specific issue they discuss. This is not an either/or, but a both/and question.

This also creates a very strange situation with regards to “other” religions. If, as an Evangelical, my goal is to end abortion, then I should want even Mormon conversions because Mormons abhor abortion as much as we do. A conversion to Mormonism will lessen the demand for abortion and, perhaps, depending on the individual, create another politically active voice against the same. But of course when I view this in purely religious terms, from my viewpoint, a Mormon conversion is a “soul lost” (although God has a lot of time left to redeem us), as I am sure Mormons feel vice versa.

The separation of church and state makes both institutions better. It helps the church concentrate on its task, which is changing people and their desires, which are often expressed politically. It helps the state best represent the nation as a whole without the inherent oppression created by the sanctioned state churches of Europe.

This is why there is a division of labor in the church. If you are a layperson who does politics, do it well, and be willing to make alliances with the other. If your ministry is spiritual, then by all means compete, hard, with the other. For most Evangelicals, and certainly for Mormons who lack a clergy, each individual plays each role some of the time. We just need to remember when we have each hat on, and understand that in a nation like America one does not wear both hats at the same time..

If we don’t we will become the very thing this nation was founded, in part, to escape.

Lowell adds: I am reluctant to add anything, because I think John’s post is superb and I agree fully.  I will simply point out that this is the Mormon view of the world and religion as well.  As a former President of the Church, Ezra Taft Benson (who also was Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower Administration) said:

The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.

It is hard to find any daylight at all between President Benson’s teaching and Bishop Chaput’s statement.
Sphere: Related Content

4 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 »

There isn’t any real news today. That’s kind of a relief, since news about The Question tends to be discouraging.

But we do have some wonderful thoughts expressed by Andrew Ferguson in First Things. The entire piece is a must read, but here’s the conclusion:

“I don’t know anything about Lincoln’s religion,” a longtime friend, David Davis, remarked after Lincoln’s death, “and I don’t believe anybody knows anything about it.” Though Davis’ skepticism should give pause to more historians than it has, he overstated the case. We will never know for sure whether Lincoln held orthodox Christian beliefs, whether he believed in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ or his resurrection, the life everlasting, the forgiveness of sins, the inerrant word of God as revealed in the Old Testament or the New.

But perhaps the country has benefited from not knowing. The uncertainty has made Lincoln our common property, whoever we are, from Robert Ingersoll to Cardinal Mundelein to Nettie Maynard. It may be indeed that Lincoln’s is the only kind of religious expression that will travel in a free country like ours. His religion has lasted a century and a half and has appealed to believers of all kinds, and to skeptics too, exactly because of its generality. Yet it still means something definable and concrete: The country, Lincoln believed, is the carrier of a precious cargo, a proposition that is the timeless human truth, and the survival of this principle will always be of providential importance. We assent to Lincoln’s creed, wide open as it is, when we think of ourselves as Americans.

(HT: Hugh Hewitt.) This seems like such an obvious point. It is both astonishing and disheartening that so many smart people who should know better either reject or ignore it.

Consider: Today, Lincoln would very likely not even get the Republican nomination. Is it so hard to imagine certain Evangelical leaders telling the world that they are deeply disturbed over Lincoln’s failure to profess publicly that he has accepted Jesus Christ?  That they do not feel comfortable supporting him?  Not just any acceptance of Christ would do for candidate Lincoln, of course — he would need to adopt only the Evangelical version of what Jesus was and is like.

Why, such folks might decide to vote for a smooth-talking former Baptist preacher instead, primarily because they simply feel more comfortable about that candidate.

You must admit, dear readers, it is something to think about.
Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

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 »

Well, as things have turned out, Barack Obama seems to have brewed the perfect politico-religious storm. Our email and comments, and even leftie commentators, albeit in an entirely different fashion, seem to want to draw great distinctions between the religious perils that have fallen on Obama and those that fell on Mitt Romney.

There are distinctions to be very sure, but do those distinctions truly make a difference?  With the very notable exception of what we mentioned on Friday, the storm that currently surrounds Obama is about what his pastor, not he, said. Now, his pastor was an official part of his campaign, but name a campaign yet where someone has not been booted for saying something egregiously stupid. You fire them, you move on (think John McCain and the John Hagee endorsement), but that does not seem to be happening here. Yes, it’s true that Obama, contrary to Romney, invited religion into his campaign instead of simply campaigned as a religious man, but most candidates invoke religion in the course of the campaign. Circumstances forced Romney to be hyper-sensitive; Obama’s statements are standard fare  (save those we cited Friday, which amazingly do not seem to be at the center of this storm); Romney was the exception - and what is happening to Obama proves Romney’s wisdom on that account.

I have a real problem with the guilt-by-religious-association aspects of what is happening to Obama right now.  Now, understand something, Obama is the last man I want to be president of the United States, but this blog is about the proper role of religion in politics, and that is a bi-partisan thing.  The presumption is that because Obama’s long-time pastor said these things, Obama must be like that.  Now, I have no idea what Obama is like in these fields, I am not paying that much attention, but I do want evidence of what Obama thinks - not his pastor.  Heck, I disagree with my pastor about 65% of the time; my denomination, taken as a whole, is on the almost opposite end of the political spectrum from me - that is one of the great things about religion in American.

We cannot condemn a candidate for something one of his associates said, or on the basis of religious affiliation - it is about the candidate, simple as that.  If there were statements of Obama agreeing, we would be in a different situation, but so far, I have not seen that evidence.

The second point I want to make is this:  Remember in the old days when everybody thought this was going to some down to Mitt v. Hillary?  We spent a lot of time wondering what the general was going to look like on the religious front.  Lowell and I both felt that it was going to be very, very ugly in comparison to the primary.   I think this incident is proving our point for us.  This whole thing stinks to me of the Clinton smear machine.  Obama’s pastor’s beliefs have been out there in public since this whole thing started.  We mentioned the radically near-racist nature of the church more than a year ago.  The timing, the way the story is staying alive after the pastors resignation from the campaign, all of it, smells of manipulation of the press, and nobody does that better than the Clintons.

If this attack is allowed to stand, whether the Clintons are behind it or not, though I strongly suspect they are,  it will become a legitimate weapon in future political arsenals.  No one, Evangelical, Protestant, Mormon, Catholic, or otherwise, will want that to be the case.  There is not a single religion that cannot be dug into without unearthing something that can be used to smear a candidate.

The nation does not need this, and might become something else altogether if it goes unchallenged.

Lowell adds:  Very briefly, we have stated on this blog since Day 1 that we don’t think a candidate’s religion should matter, except in the most extreme circumstances.  I think the three-point test advanced by John Mark Reynolds in August 2006 can be useful here: 

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.

We don’t know enough to know whether Obama’s church meets these tests, but I have a strong hunch it does.  The key is that Prof. Reynolds is talking about the religious beliefs of a candidate, not the statements of others who are members or leaders of the candidate’s church. 

On the first test, the Trinity United Church of Christ to which Obama belongs is “the largest congregation in the whole United Church of Christ.“  Yes, Obama’s particular congregation does appear to be very afro-centric, which is disturbing or off-putting to many (including me), but it is no small, whacky sect.

I think it passes the second test easily.  This is from the Trinity mission statement:

Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of “who we are” and “whose we are,” call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!

I don’t see any “horrific” or “far out” public policy coming from that.

As for the third test, I don’t see any “secret authoritarian leanings.”  People might not like the tone of the church’s mission statement, but that is unrelated to Obama’s fitness for the presidency.

Yes, we as voters can ask all the questions we want about Jeremiah Wright’s outrageous anti-American statements, and whether Obama agrees with those rantings — but who really thinks he does?  Absent any evidence to the contrary, once Obama repudiates Wright’s statements, I think the matter is over.  Similarly, once McCain repudiated Hagee, that question went away.  And , all Romney had to do about the LDS Church’s former policy on African-Americans was to make it clear he did not agree with the policy and was overjoyed when it ended.  End of questions.  As John says, we need to view religious guilt by association with a very jaundiced eye.
Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments »