From time to time on this blog, we have cited Stephen Prothero of Boston University who has done some excellent work on public knowledge of religion and the intersection of religion and politics. He had an op-ed in USAToday yesterday in which he looked at the political/religious ramifications of the recent Pew Religous Landscape Survey:

The tale I take away from this study is that shifts in the political and moral winds are transforming American religion. Many believe that the Founders separated church and state in order to save the federal government from the interference of overzealous ministers. Not so. The purpose of the First Amendment’s establishment clause — which prohibits the federal government from passing laws that favor any one religion (atheism included) — was to safeguard religion against the encroachment of politics. And this new survey suggests that those safeguards are, well, going the way of the freak show.

[…]

Plainly, the Republican Party gained ground over the past quarter-century by attaching itself to family, morality and God, even as the Democratic Party lost ground by focusing on such matters as rights and reason. In the process, the Republicans became the party of God and the Democrats the party of secularism — not a good strategy for the Democratic Party in a country where 96% of voters believe in God. So Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both taking pains to pitch their party as a party of prayer and piety.

Even so, for much of the past generation, “Christian” and “conservative” have seemed to be interchangeable terms. It should not be surprising if at least some on the left who once upon a time might have described themselves as “Christians” have decided to jettison that affiliation for political reasons. Such reasons, it should be emphasized, are basically the same ones so many Europeans have divorced themselves from their country’s established churches: because the marriage of a given church with a particular political regime is never eternal, and when it ends it leaves a lot of angry children in its wake.

Let me break this down for you a bit. Essentially, what Prothero is arguing is that by making “Christian” and “Conservative” nearly synonymous, religion is losing because people do not want to affiliate with the church when its identity is primarily political, not spiritual. In the article, he cites this political-religious identification as a primary mover behind the decline of the church in Europe, and I would argue that the Founding Fathers saw that decline in its early stages and as Prothero points out, it is one of the reasons they wanted the separation.

A brief aside - that would argue for “religious” founding fathers, as interesied in preserving the church, any church, as the nation - something to think about in the great debate over whether they were Christians or not.

The real point I want to make out of this post, is that I think Prothero is essentially right - too strong a political identity for the church is bad for the church. Further, by voting on the basis of religion, whether it be positive identity attraction with Huckabee or the negative “don’t vote for a Mormon” expressed by some of my less-enlightened co-religionists, is one very concrete way of cementing that political identity for the church. If there is a one-to-one correlation between religion and vote, the identity is solid and unbreakable - and the church loses.

Prothero has, in this piece, had an extraordinary insight, and it is something that religious leaders who played the religion card in the primaries need to think about very seriously - Short term advantage with extraordinary long term costs. Read the whole thing. Right now, the Mormon stand-offish approach to politics is looking a lot smarter than the Evangelical hands-on.

Lowell adds:  I will share one anedcote that I found striking.  I was discussing this very subject with a deeply intelligent, sophisticated, believing and committed Mormon friend.  I suggested that we Mormons ought to insist on a new name.  After all, “Mormon” began as a pejorative term for members of my church, the real name of which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Why not insist on being called “Latter-day Christians?” I asked.  Sure, some members of other faiths would find that outrageous, but it would be more faithful to our church’s name and does express what we proclaim to the world we represent.

Her response: “I’m not so sure I like that, what with the perception of the term ‘Christian’ these days — as a group of very strident, intolerant right-wing people who are vicious in their attacks on people who disagree with them on anything even closely associated with a religious belief.”

Ouch.  There is much to say in response to that statement, of course, and I am not endorsing it.  But I can see what my friend is saying; there is a grain of truth to it.

At bottom, I find that very, very sad.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

. . . and it is not between Mormons and Evangelicals. No, it is between Republicans and Democrats. Witness Obama’s ersatz citation of the Sermon on the Mount and Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Now, if any conservative cited scripture in support of any position, all you-know-what would break loose. Yet, from Obama’s golden tongue, an utterance like this:

“If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” Obama said.

barely registers on the MSM radar. Now the reasons behind this are numerous. For one, Obama supports a position most of the MSM agrees with - that makes a huge difference.  However, in citing scripture as justification for his position, does he not exclude those that do not hold to scripture? Was Mitt Romney, the conservative, not pilloried for what some viewed as similarly exclusive remarks in The Speech?

But more, this utterance represents a view of scripture that is common amongst the “reasonably” religious. That is to say, people who mold their faith instead of allow their faith to mold them. Setting passages of scripture at odds with each other violates just about every rule of scriptural understanding that has been established over centuries of Biblical scholarship. It is a field of study called Hermeneutics and its companion field of study Exegesis.

If Obama’s desire is to connect with Evangelicals, then he just sent every serious studied Evangelical running for cover, as far away from him as possible.

I have long expected Obama - “the Rookie” - to make a major mistake. He has lasted longer than I expected, but this may be it. John Mark Reynolds wonders as well.

If it would not violate every rule for political discourse we set for this blog, I would love to show the utter religious ignorance of this silly, silly statement. Alas, I shall have to let it speak for itself. I believe the phrase is “Res Ipsa Loquitor.”

Lowell adds: Hey! I’m the lawyer here. I thought those old Latin phrases belonged to me!

Actually, Obama’s statement is of a type so common among left-of-center politicians (and others) who quote Scripture that it’s almost boring. If he were a Catholic, he’d be a “cafeteria Catholic.” Maybe he’s a cafeteria Christian: “I like this statement in the the New Testament better than that one, so I’ll just live by the one I like.” Very modern.

More to the point, I think the statement shows that Obama does not really take the Bible seriously. I am not so sure this is a major mistake; it’s more like Obama showing his true colors. But the real point is the one John made: Obama can refer to the Bible, even in a controversial manner, without even a peep from the MSM. Could Romney have done the same? Could Huckabee have, for that matter?
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

We wrote yesterday of working hard not to let the MSM write “the simple narrative” to the Romney campaign, and particularly the religion angle. And yet the SLTrib started to paint it in entirely religious terms almost immediately, which Lowell addressed well last night. And other events are breaking that do not help much.

Conspiracy theories are born of events, often unrelated, but which can be strung together to create a picture of sinister intent. In light of the desire of people to paint a simple narrative on this whole thing, I think James Dobson has fed a conspiracy theory for years to come with his endorsement last night of Huckabee. I think this may haunt Evangelicals:

In a statement first obtained by The Associated Press, Dobson revisited his declaration on Super Tuesday that he could not in good conscience vote for John McCain, the front-runner, because of concerns over the Arizona senator’s conservative credentials.

Dobson said given the situation at that point, he was reluctant to choose between “two pro-family candidates whom I could support” - Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

But Dobson wrote that Romney’s announcement Thursday that he was suspending his campaign “changed the political landscape.”

Now, I believe Dobson here. I do not know the man personally, but I know people that do, and I do not think he is capable of the deception or misdirection that would be necessary to pull off the obvious conspiracy theory that will flow out of this. My interpretation of this is that James Dobson is extremely firm in his commitment to social conservatives issues, that he backs those issues at the expense of virtually anything else, and that he is politically naive.

But my convictions on this notwithstanding, the appearance, which will be used by many to establish a narrative, is just awful.

Let’s start here, with this piece in the American Thinker:

The US has always had far too many varieties of faith and non-faith for any religion to gain a majority. That is why Huckabee’s faith-baiting didn’t play in most of the country, and it is also why his support will not expand far beyond the Bible Belt.

The “faith-baiting” refers to Huckabee’s anti-Mormon “aside” to the NYTimes just before Iowa. There is a lot of truth to that quote. Which means that by endorsing Huck, Dobson has pretty much squandered his endorsement. His conscience may have demanded same, but given that his lack of support for McCain was already well known from his Monday statement, not to mention his very early statements and their context, would not an endorsement of Huckabee been implicit after Romney’s withdrawal? And would have allowing it to stay implicit not have avoided the appearance of a conspiracy?

The possible theory is simple. Dobson’s Monday anti-McCain declaration could be read, and certainly was read by some out of their own anti-Mormon bias, as an encouragement to vote for Huck. It will be interesting to see - I hope someone polls this - how much of an effect Dobson’s Monday declaration had in Huck’s Super Tuesday southern sweep. To come out with this Huck endorsement mere hours after Romney’s withdrawal makes it all appear very strategic. You just know someone is going to try and connect the dots, and with the MSM poised on the religion question, and wanting to simplify things, they may be active participants is such conspiratorial theorizing.

When you also examine the actions of the Dobson-allied FRC, releasing key staffers to the Huckabee campaign just long enough to help with Iowa and rob Romney of momentum, one can construct a very plausible “Stop the Mormon” scenario.

With Mormon disappointment and anger at the levels it is right now, I am surprised the charge has not already been leveled. With so many creedal Christians out there floating outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the Mormons; it is a testament to Mormon patience and forbearing that they have not struck back in a similar fashion.

None Of This Helps Any Of Us…

Now, here is the bottom line. We are fighting liberal, secularist tendencies in the nation. Something Evangelicals, creedal Christians in general and Mormons share in common. Given that common cause, it makes no sense whatsoever to divide the forces - particularly when Romney is out. What possible political good can come from deepening the divide in an already divided political camp? The Mormon vote is significant and important to social conservative causes (see the American Thinker quote above) - driving an additional nail in an already sealed coffin can only serve as a big enormous, “Get out of my face and leave me alone.” And thus we Evangelicals lose potentially 6 million allied Mormon votes; votes we desperately need - particularly in a McCain lead party.

The chief charge of the left against us, as religious voters, is that we are small-minded, irrational, and easily led. These moves add to that appearance, supplying ammunition to our genuine political foe. It makes us appear more interested in our petty inter-religious squabbles than fighting for the things that matter and can be affected on the national stage. Likely innocence of intent notwithstanding, it also makes us appear devious and untrustworthy.

The social conservative wing of the Republican party is hurting right now, and this move opens the wound wider. BIG MISTAKE.

Saturday Morning Addition:   The WSJ looks at Dobson’s move in almost purely political terms and makes some pretty stark statements:

But for the network of socially conservative activists who are now such a large part of the Republican Party, this is also an instructive moment. They have to decide if they care more about achieving their policy goals than they do about being kingmakers within the GOP.

They then go on to make a very convincing case that McCain is the best bet at this point for pro-life concerns.  I’d like to rephrase this pullquote just a bit - What Evangelicals need to learn at this juncture is that it is more important to do politics well, advancing you particular concerns, NOT play identity games.  The WSJ argument is in many ways, the same one I made on Monday, save adjusting the math to compensate for Romney’s withdrawal.  *Sigh*
Sphere: Related Content

13 Comments »

The results from WV are in and given what happened, it seems obvious that McCain threw his delegates to Huckabee on the second ballot to turn the tide.  Sean Hannity is reporting that as fact on his radio program as I write.  Now, delegate swapping is as old as politics - deals are deals.

My issue is this.  McCain and Huck have been denying and denying that they were working together in any fashion, and yet here it is as fact.  Do you expect me to believe this whole deal was put together between ballots without some preamble?  Not buying it.

Which means McCain and Huckabee have been lying to us.

We have been treated to the “Mormons lie” meme for quite some time now.  I have heard from many Evangelicals that could not bring themselves to trust the Mormon.  But who ends up shown to be the liar? - the evangelical Huckabee.

As an Evangelical I want no part of that.  I bet most Evangelicals feel the same way.  We are better than this.

If Romney loses, he loses, but after suffering broad hints for months that he was disingenuous, to have his opponents demostrate such blatant disingenuousness is just beyond the pale.

Worse, the “lie meme” is going to land on us Evangelicals in spades anytime we stick our heads up for air.  What a revolting development.
Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »

For my personal primary vote - crunch time is at hand. Tuesday is THE day for me. I am going to vote proudly for Mitt Romney. Not much of a shocker there, really, but people must remember that I did not start this blog to support Mitt Romney. Lowell can express his own motivations if he wants to, but when this all started, I was less than enthusiastic about Mitt Romney.

On Friday, Rick Santorum appeared on Hugh Hewitt, endorsing Romney. He said, in essence, that as the campaign has worn on Romney has genuinely moved from a conservative “ticket-puncher” to the real deal. That in nutshell explains my vote this week.

The conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. . . . The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

But if I have not been a Romney supporter from the beginning, why have I labored this hard (and believe me, you have no idea how hard this really is) for nearly two years? The answer is very straightforward. When I was first introduced the the idea via Hugh Hewitt and Robert Novak that Evangelicals would not vote for Romney because of his faith, one thought ran through my mind: “political suicide.” Only one thing could result from such a bias and that was the Evangelical political voice being cast to the side. I wanted to protect that voice. Thus my half of this blog was born.

As is almost always true in politics, the journey has been quite different than I expected, but I truly believe that the Evangelical political voice is now at stake. If Mitt Romney loses - far from a foregone conclusion - his religion will be but one of many factors in that event, and while important, I do not think it will have been determinative.

However, as the race has narrowed down to two and the spoiler, the conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. Conservatives lose and Evangelicals are on the bench, if they are in the stadium at all. In other words, we stand on the precipice I feared from the beginning. The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

Continue Reading »
Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

The revelation that Huckabee actually lost the Evangelical vote in Michigan, 34%-29%, is indeed encouraging, as John notes below. It also puts me in mind of the now-tired notion that conservative religious voters blindly support the religiously “anointed” man or woman in the race, no matter what. Unless they had been living in a cave, Michigan Evangelicals (along with everyone else in the country) certainly knew Huck was a former Baptist preacher who had been running for months as a man who spoke “the language of Zion” as his “mother tongue.” “I come today as one not who comes to you, but as one who comes from you,” he told them. And yet he could not even win 30% of the Evangelical voters in Michigan. His Mormon opponent beat him in that demographic by 5%.

Update: The Detroit News reports more demographic details:

• Religion: Protestant voters made up more than half the electorate and favored Romney by a solid margin. Catholics comprised a third of voters and were split between McCain and Romney. Huckabee, a Baptist minister, was favored by one of every five Protestant voters but one in 10 Catholics.

Romney even had a slight edge with evangelicals, the group Huckabee was counting on to do well in Michigan.

(Emphasis added.) These data seem to make pretty clear the limited nature of Huck’s religion-based appeal.

As a Mormon . . .

I am used to (and tired of) the assumption that we, as well as other religious people in America, are blind automotons without the ability to think for ourselves. It’s well-documented that during the Depression the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were appalled at New Deal welfare programs and openly urged Church members to vote against them. And yet Roosevelt carried Utah by large majorities in every election.

Maybe, just maybe, we should cut Evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics, and faith groups generally a little slack. Sure, some Mormons will always vote for the Mormon candidate. Some Evangelicals will trust only a co-religionist in public office. But there is too much evidence of independent thinking to conclude that even a plurality of conservative religious voters will support a candidate based solely on religious identity politics.

One more thought:  Politicians who, like Huckabee, attempt such a candidacy will almost surely fail in a national election.  As we have seen, however, the potential for mischief is great.  I’ve got to think Huckabee can read polls and knows his chances of actually being the GOP nominee are quite slim.  If I’m right, then his use of his Evangelical background to support his candidacy seems all the more cynical.  He’s hoping that religious identity politics will enable him to knock another candidate out of the race and create more influence for himself — perhaps even a vice presidential nod.

When you think about it, that’s not exactly high-minded, is it?
Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »