Article VI Blog

Mourn·ing [mawr-ning, mohr-]

noun

1. the act of a person who mourns;  sorrowing or lamentation.
2. the conventional manifestation of sorrow for a person’s death, especially by the wearing of black clothes or a black armband, the hanging of flags at half-mast, etc.
3. the outward symbols of such sorrow, as black garments.
4. the period or interval during which a person grieves or formally expresses grief, as by wearing black garments.

People mourn in a lot of ways.  When they lose a loved one, people need both to express their sorrow and and to receive comfort for their loss.  This is a universal experience and has over the millennia been ritualized in some fashion by virtually every culture/religion/people group you can name.  The Jews “sit shiva” and receive comfort from the living:

Shiva (Hebrew: שבעה‎) (literally “seven”) is the week-long mourning period in Judaism for first-degree relatives: father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. The ritual is referred to as “sitting shiva.” Immediately after burial, first-degree relatives assume the halakhic status of “avel” (Hebrew: אבל ; “mourner”). This state lasts for seven days, during which family members traditionally gather in one home (preferably the home of the deceased) and receive visitors. At the funeral, mourners traditionally rend an outer garment, a ritual known as keriah. This garment is worn throughout shiva.

The Roman Catholics have a highly ritualized tradition that culminates in a Mass which always includes the Eucharist which is a ritual in which all share in the death and resurrection of Jesus.  I could go on like this all day.  My point is that the variances are huge and the meanings in the rituals are nuanced, often understood only by committed individuals to the community from which the ritual comes.

As a Christian if I celebrate the Eucharist as a part of my mourning ritual for a Jewish friend am I insulting that friends faith, or am I finding comfort from the sources and rituals most meaningful to me?  Am I telling my dead friend how “wrong” his faith was, or am I hoping for a blessed eternity for him?  I am sure there are a few nasty people out there  for whom the motivations in the first clause of that last sentence apply, but for most people it is the latter.  Most people mourn in the fashion to which they are most accustomed not out of disrespect for the deceased, but in a mark of ultimate respect.  These are acts of love, pure and simple.

And so it is with the LDS ritual of posthumous baptism.  It is an expression of a Mormon’s love and concern for a deceased individual.  It is not some sort of unilateral religious conversion ritual:

Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. Each individual has agency, or the right to choose. The validity of a baptism for the dead depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church.

It is simply an expression of a Mormon’s love for the deceased and their hope that the deceased can have what they consider to be the best.

And so when we mock these rituals — Shiva – the Eucharist – Baptism for the dead — we mock the love that the living had for the deceased.  In my book that is about as inhumane as it gets.

And so, when Stephen Colbert circumcises a hot dog to convert dead Mormons into Jews or a website offers to turn dead Mormons gay – I get angry, really angry.  Not because I believe in the Mormon practice – I most assuredly do not.  But I do have many Mormon friends.  People for whom I have enough affection that I do not wish to see them mocked in their deeply felt pain.

Is all this mockery bigotry like Charles Blow?  Probably not – but it is as, or even more, despicable.  It is certainly not a mark of a civil society – it is certainly indecent.

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

John and I feel stymied. We’re both buried in work right now, but there is so much to write about. I know I will be back here tomorrow with more, but for now will limit myself to some quick hits.

A conservative double standard

I’ll start with a short rant. It is clear to anyone following the conservative Twitterverse and blogosphere — or anywhere the right-of-center punditocracy hangs out — that the overwhelming majority of those writers will give Rick Santorum a pass on every ill-considered statement he makes, but will crucify Mitt Romney for calling himself “severely conservative,” which was simply a slip of the tongue.

I am a conservative but I recognize that our side can often be truly boorish too. I was not a Harriet Miers fan, but I remember when National Review compared her to Caligula’s horse, in an apparent attempt at humor that many of them seemed to find hilarious.

Romney’s conservative critics are relentlessly bringing the same snarky humor to bear on him.  In the last two days Donald Douglas has referred to Jen Rubin as “the resident Romney shill at the Washington Post.”  Douglas’s post was tweeted and retweeted multiple times by approving conservative writers.

One of Romney’s daughters in-law posted candid family photos, which are described snidely as “25 Photos Of Mitt Romney Looking Perfectly Normal.“  Really?  I thought they were simply nice pictures of an exemplary American family.

That’s Daily Kos stuff. We cons are better than that, or at least I like to think we should be.

Santorum:  not now

John wrote eloquently in yesterday’s post about needing the right man or woman at the right time.

To me, the problem is that Santorum makes bombastic statements capable of multiple interpretations, and often has to walk them back.  It doesn’t help that he has a record of being a vocal social conservative, so that his ambiguous statements are given the most damaging interpretations.  This is not the news media’s fault, in my opinion, and we conservatives should stop apologizing for Santorum.

Not everyone on the right is apologizing. In Commentary Pete Wehner eloquently addresses, and adds to, the point Bill McGurn made in the Wall Street Journal (and which John cited yesterday).

The main (though not exclusive) problem for Santorum is his rhetorical approach to social issues. He’s said he would be the one president who would talk about the damage contraception does to American society. He’s spoken quite openly about criminalizing doctors who perform abortions. He’s made a passionate case against prenatal testing. He’s been quite forthright in his views against homosexual acts, about women in combat, and about women in the workforce. He’s given a speech in which he’s said Satan has systematically targeted the key institutions in American life. The danger for Santorum is that, fairly or not, these statements and stands, separately and (especially) combined, create a portrait of a person who is censorious and sits in critical judgment of the lifestyle of most Americans….

It’s almost impossible to overstate how important tone and countenance are when it comes to social issues. There is a great deal to be said for those who care about the cultural condition of American society. But the arguments on behalf of moral truth need to be made in ways that are winsome, in a manner that is meant to persuade. What this means, in part, is the person making the arguments needs to radiate some measure of grace and tolerance rather than condemnation and zeal. What we’re talking about is using a light touch rather than a heavy hand. To understand the difference, think about how the language (and spirit) of the pro-life movement shifted from accusing people of being “baby killers” to asking Americans to join a movement in which every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. Social conservatism, if it ever hopes to succeed, needs to be articulated in a way that is seen as promoting the human good and advancing human dignity, rather than declaring a series of forbidden acts that are leading us to Gomorrah.

In “The Real Trouble with Rick,” John Podhoretz makes the argument in a similar, although more pointed, manner.

..Santorum’s problem is — forgive the technical graduate-school political-science terminology here — that he’s a sourpuss, and sourpusses don’t get elected president.

The former Pennsylvania senator looks like he swallowed a lemon — and he acts like America is the lemon he swallowed….

Remember: This entire process is a job interview in which the candidates are trying to get hired by the electorate. Insulting the electorate and accusing it of spiritual weakness and sinfulness are not the ways to get yourself the job of president.

I am less sanguine about Santorum than John is. I don’t think he has the right mix of policy views and leadership traits to be a good president, now or in the future. If the Senator is nominated I’d vote for him against Barack Obama, who I think has even less of those necessary attributes, but I am convinced my vote would be merely a statement of position, made while Obama wins 40 states. We’ll see.

John Joins…

Double Standard?!

That’s putting it mildly Lowell!  And you accuse me of being sanguine.  Robert Jeffress says “Mormons are not Christians” and they right leaning punditry erupts in a furor.  Rick Santorum says “mainline Protestants are gone from the world of Christianity” and the sound of crickets fills the night – at least on the right side of the aisle.  Jeffress was saying what he believes and so was Santorum, it is in fact Catholic doctrine that none of us are Christians but them.  That’s OK – America is about differing religious views co-existing to the benefit of the nation as a whole.  But that co-existence is based on knowing when to invoke religious doctrine and when not to.

Well, Jeffress made his comments at a political event and Santorum made his comments in a religious setting.  Maybe Santorum never anticipated running for president, I don’t know, but let’s look at another double standard.  It is Mormon doctrine that they are the church restored, and rest of us have corrupted in one fashion or the other – they are not willing to condemn us to hell (just lower levels of heaven) on that basis, as some would, but that is their doctrine.  (Lowell, please correct me if I got this wrong.)

Now, let’s imagine a future general election is which an audio or video tape of Mitt Romney speaking at a Mormon gathering of some sort on the Mormon doctrine I just laid out – “Mormonism is the church properly restored!”  What precisely do you think is going to happen?  Are the leading Christians on the right going to stand silently by while the left savages him as they are with Santorum?  Somehow, I don’t think so.  Somehow, I think the outrage would be immense, not to mention the election lost.

There are two points to make out of this imagined scenario.  One, there is definitely a double standard on the right – there is a tolerance of Catholic doctrine where there is not of Mormon doctrine.  That’s a huge problem.  But the second point is a more subtle one.

I think what we are witnessing with Santorum is a dress rehearsal for the general.  Team Obama is going to try to use religion to drive a wedge in his opposition.  That’s probably why everyone is so silent about Santorum’s missteps here – they do not want to supply Obama with the ammo.  But it is too late for that – The anti-Mormon bias that is so evident and the prior reactions to it mean we will only be discounted as hypocritical.  Setting of comments not withstanding, it is public knowledge now, we have no choice but to condemn Santorum’s statements.

So what happens if such a tape of Romney does appear?  Firstly, I don’t think it will, but secondly Mormon doctrine is much more subtle than Catholic or Evangelical.  Mormons don’t think the rest of us non-Christian, just lesser-Christian.  That’s a pretty big difference.  You’ll NEVER find evidence of Romney saying someone of a different church is “not a Christian” or “gone from the world of Christianity” because they don’t believe it.

And then there is Romney’s “Faith in America” speech from December 2007.  (The video is in our widget on the left – scroll through)  In that speech Romney made an excellent case for the religious pluralism that is this nation while defending his right to his personal faith.  Do we have such a speech from Santorum?  If we did, Santorum could quit stumblin’ — bumblin’ — fumblin’ (Nod to Chris Berman) his way through the last few days and just point to said speech.  Is Santorum trying to articulate the case for religious pluralism in America while defending his personal faith?  Nope. he’s trying to play the spin game.

That’s why this attack IS working against Santorum, but will not work when Obama tries it in the general – at least if we are smart enough to nominate Mitt Romney.  But if we do not acknowledge the problems with Santorum’s statements we still run a grave risk of being discounted as hypocritical religious bigots because of what has gone before.  That is not where we want to be.

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Prejudice, Understanding Religion | 7 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Sorry Santorum fans, but this is a bit too much:

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) made some comments on Obama’s beliefs at a tea party rally here Saturday morning that are likely to raise some eyebrows.

Obama believes in “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum said, according to Steve Peoples of the Associated Press.

Worse yet, he doubled down on it:

At a news conference after an address to a conservative Christian group here, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum stood by his comments earlier in the day that President Obama supports “a phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible,” and fired back at the Obama campaign for calling the statement “just the latest low” in a negative GOP primary campaign.

Oh, this is just pregnant with irony.  We are getting rumors out of the Obama campaign that Mormon jokes, cracks and bigotry are the order of the day in Chicago HQ, so for Obama to get to call Santorum’s religious bigotry “a low” is definitely ironic – but worse yet is the fact that Santorum made that statement.

You judge one theology, you judge them all.  So how far behind can be Mormon attacks at Romney?  As different as Obama’s theology undoubtedly is, Romney’s is even more different.  And then there is the fact that Catholic theology is pretty radical stuff compared to typical Evangelical thought.  What’s Santorum gonna do if he starts getting hit for using Saints as prayer intercessors or the veneration of Mary gets carefully examined.  Most Evangelicals find that stuff pretty “weird.”

But We’re Not Done…

Gateway Pundit rightly excoriates Ed Kilgore and Washington Monthly for a grossly misleading headline.  But the underlying Santorum quote that the headline so wrongly characterizes is worth some scrutiny:

[O]nce the colleges fell and those who were being educated in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.

Look, I am the first to acknowledge the decline of denominational Protestantism in the nation, but this quote, and his remarks in total, fail to acknowledge the rise of Evangelicalism in the void created by that decline – and so quite, quite wrongly blames denominational Protestantism for our cultural decline.  Simple logic dictates that rising Evangelicalism must have had as much to do with it as declining denominational Protestantism.  (Full disclosure: As a Presbyterian I am a denominational Protestant. Yes, I am evangelical in my focus inside of the Presbyterian church, but I am decidedly a Presbyterian.)

There are two things evident in these remarks.  First is a certain political fluidity.  Why did Santorum disregard the role of Evangelicals?  Could political expediency be part of that?  We Protestants are in such decline that we make an easy target (not to mention most of us are liberal), but you need Evangelicals politically if you are on the right.

Secondly, we don’t need to start pointing fingers at other religious groups – PERIOD!  If Santorum is willing to point the finger of blame for cultural decline at my church, what about yours?

Now for full consideration of the context:  Santorum’s remarks are made regarding liberal cultural attack.  He is saying that the left attacked, and succeeded in attacking, the Protestants.  But this is pregnant with the implication that our faith was not strong enough to withstand the attack.   What he is trying to do is urge Catholics to be stronger than we were.  To which I respond: “Where the *&^% were you when we were being attacked?”  You want my help now?  Strength lies in unity, not in divisive comments about one another.

Politically, the bottom line is simple.  In one case Santorum is completely religiously intolerant, in another he is taken out of context and placing him in context he make more sense but is still religiously divisive.  Santorum’s past is full of stuff like the latter – just overflowing with it, really.  He may not be as big an jerk as Gingrich, but he is still an oppo researcher’s dream.  He’ll be explaining out of context comments for the rest of the campaign.  Which means the left is defining the discussion, not us – which means we lose.

Worse yet, his truly intolerant comments concerning Obama pretty well disqualify him from holding office.  It is simply not the president’s job to be judging whose theology is correct and whose is not.

Lowell adds . . .

Giving Senator Santorum the benefit of the doubt, I suppose he might have been referring to the apparent liberation theology underpinnings of President Obama’s faith, which the president seemed to express in his speech to the National Prayer Breakfast a couple of weeks ago:

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others. [Emphasis added.]

There’s nothing new here. Democrats have been saying for years that redistributionist economics are consistent with, if not mandated by, the teachings of the Lord Himself. Now, if Santorum had attacked that notion, he’d be on solid ground. There’s no transcript of his remarks this morning, however, so the best we can say — as John notes above — is that Santorum has some explaining to do about what he really meant. It’s been around 12 hours since his comments, and still the only explanation is this one:

[Santorum] later suggested that the president practices a different kind of Christianity.

“In the Christian church there are a lot of different stripes of Christianity,” he said. “If the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.” [Emphasis added.]

Is it just me, or is that somewhat lame? In a different context, Santorum said the same thing about Romney on Fox News Sunday in January, as he dodged a question about Romney’s Christianity:

WALLACE: Senator, do you think Mormonism is a cult?

SANTORUM: No, I don’t.

WALLACE: Do you think that Mitt Romney, contrary to what this Dallas pastor, Robert Jeffress, said at the Values Voter, do you think Mitt Romney is a true Christian?

SANTORUM: Mitt Romney is a true — he says he’s a Christian. I believe he said Christian. [Emphasis added.]

In fairness to Santorum, he amplified his comments about Romney’s faith:

I’m not an expert on Mormonism. All I know is that every Mormon I know is a good and decent person, has great moral values and, by and large, with the exception of Harry Reid, by and large, pretty consistent in the values that I share and that things I want to see happen to this country. And that’s what he should be judged on.

But still…call me paranoid, but I hear just the faintest dog whistle there. “He says he’s a Christian.” Why not just answer “No,” and dismiss the subject?

Then there’s this, from Santorum’s Meet the Press appearance on June 12, 2011:

MR. GREGORY:  Let me ask you about being a Christian conservative in the race.  Do you think that Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, will have a problem in this race in the primary as Mormons?

SEN. SANTORUM:  I hope not.  I hope that people look at the, at the qualities of candidates and look at what they believe in and look at what they’re for, look at their records and make a decision.

(For some reason all of this reminds me of Santorum’s full-throated endorsement of Mitt Romney back in 2008. But I digress.)

If Santorum really did mean to attack Obama’s faith, then he has crossed a line, and what he says next — will he backtrack or truly double down? — may well be an important moment in this campaign, perhaps even an historic moment.

As we’ve said before, watch this space.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 8 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Before we get to the meat of this post, remember what I said yesterday about Sanotrum’s charitable giving.  It still applies.  But then live by the theology sword and die by it.

The Big Picture

The proxy baptism meme has turned into a full-throated furor, but again only on the left.  The Brits are seeing it for what it is – a blatant religious attack.  Fortunately, some Jews are rising to the defense.   This, by the way, is just nonsense:

So to Carter’s point, I think many candidates like Romney have lacked a common touch because it is in fact mostly alien to them. I’m not sure Mormonism is Romney’s problem.

Oh, let’s disprove that argument by turning to the now rising discussion on Rick Santorum – everybody’s supposed “everyman.”  As this leftie and this one make quite plain, they view Sanotrum just as weird as Romney.  Religion is what takes away “the common touch,” be it Mormon, Catholic or Evangelical.

So, here is the big picture.  In one policy initiative by Obama, forecasted (I am now convinced with foreknowledge) by George Stephanopoulis the national conversation has pivoted from the economy, giant government, and Obama’s flat out unconstitutional power grabs to social religious issues.  The net result of this change is that the polling inside the Republican primary has flipped and both leading candidates are now losing to Obama.  What do we conclude?

Religious/social issues are a LOSER!  So, when it comes to picking our candidate, do we want the one of the slightly different faith that works hard to keep his faith reasonably personal, or the one that wears his faith on his sleeve providing the Dems with an enormous target.  Think hard now, and remember social issues are an electoral loser.

Do we want a candidate that is socially conservative? Absolutely, but we do not want one that RUNS on being socially conservative – there is a big, big difference.

It’s The Weekend, So Let’s Get Deep For Just A Minute

From The Chicago School of Divinity blog “Sightings”:

In the century since the Chicago fair, Mormons have been lauded for their choirs and their football. They are largely respected as good, decent, family-centered people, who are welcome to sing for presidents and dance with the stars—and everyone agrees to avoid theological questions. But as presidential nominations near, Romney’s candidacy threatens this compromise, because what a Mormon presidential candidate actually believes seems far too important to table. And when Mormon theology enters the public discussion, the words Charles Dickens wrote in 1851 strike many as still apt: “What the Mormons do, seems to be excellent; what they say, is mostly nonsense.”

But this is only true because in acquiescing to the compromise, Mormons have largely left others to frame the theological discussion. In opting to emphasize Mormon culture over Mormon theology, Mormons have too often left the media and ministers free to select the most esoteric and idiosyncratic for ridicule. So jibes about Kolob and magic underwear usurp serious engagement, much as public knowledge about the Amish is confined to a two-dimensional caricature involving a horse and buggy. But members of a faith community should recognize themselves in any fair depiction. And it is the fundamentals of Mormonism that should ground any debate worth having about Mormon beliefs or Mormon membership in the Christian community.

Because I do not want to turn the discussion here theological I will avoid getting into the fundamentals that Terryl Givens well describes.  Let’s just say we have as much in common as we have differences.  But as I read this I was struck by something extraordinary that I should have thought of long ago.  I think it finally dawned on me because of the Jewish role in the proxy baptism dust up and my trip to Israel last summer.

Some years ago, I was changing planes in La Guardia and had to change terminals – that meant clear security (Yeah – it’s that bad an airport).  Anyway, it was a short connection and I nearly missed my flight becasue I was stuck in security behind a family of Hassids – ultra orthodox Jews.  Do you have any idea how long it takes such men to get off all the garment related accouterments of their faith so they can pass through the metal detector?  When I visited the Western Wall this past summer, where local Jews pray daily, I was stunned at how much clothing they had on – it was HOT!

Then there is the San Jose airport where the vast majority of service personnel are turban wearing Sikhs.  You tend to think you are in the Punjab when you arrive.

Do I need to go on?  The point is garment requirements for the faithful are common to many faiths.  Next time a Mormon gets asked about their undergarments, they should ask the asker what they are wearing and why.

But back to this piece – it starts with a very brief historical perspective on Mormons and the nation and describes “the compromise” that Mormons made with the nation – essentially to drop polygamy, emphasize culture, and de-emphasize theology.  The question that this piece does not answer, is why does running for president violate that compromise.  Is it just too “uppity?”  (Lord I hope not.)

Let’s go back to “The Big Picture” above – the reason it matters is because when religion and social issues matter, Republicans lose.  It does not need to be any more complex than that.  Changing that fact is a matter for the church not politics.  No amount of arguing faith in the political realm will change it – the only thing that will change it is when the vast majority of the nation shares your religious views – that means evangelism, conversion, and retention – but it does not mean politics.

Like I said above – we want a candidate that IS socially conservative, but we do not want one that RUNS on being socially conservative.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Freedom | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

My little web-crawling spiders today that look for the words “Romney” and “Mormon” came up exclusively and voluminously with stories on Weisenthal’s comments on the Mormon ordinances.  I’ll only link a couple of stories, because it is old, it is tired and it is pointless.  I have to say it is perhaps the most unique area of oppo research ever.

It is absolutely fascinating to me that this story is leaping around the left like a hot potato and no one, I mean NO ONE, on the right is going near it.  An evangelical friend of mine said to me the other day, “Romney has as much to do with Weisenthal’s parents posthumous baptism as Santorum does with the pedophile priest scandals in Roman Catholic church.”  Very true, but apparently, to the left, posthumous baptism is weirder and more dangerous than pedophilia.

The right seems to have learned that Mormon attacks will backfire.  The MSM is aiding them in their silence because they don’t want Romney as the nominee either.  So, it is left to the British press to point out what is going on:

Evangelicals spread the gospel of Rick Santorum in blue-collar Michigan

But do they know what they have gotten themselves into?  The Sanotrum organization remains very weak.  Santorum carries some pretty heavy baggage.  Santorum is even sounding a bit “gingrichess.”  Some of his supporters are getting silly.  But there are two stories that need to be covered in detail here.

One – Sanotrum voted for funding the NEA:

When social conservatives were fighting to stop funding the National Endowment for the Arts in the 1990s, Rick Santorum was in Congress voting to preserve taxpayer funding — pitting him against many of the high-profile culture warriors with whom he is now most identified.

NEA funding became a hot-button issue during the first President Bush’s term and on into the Clinton years, featuring prominently in that decade’s spending battles, as both fiscal and social conservatives argued against taxpayers subsidizing such art as the infamous “Piss Christ” photograph.

Do we remember that photograph?  Here is how Wikipedia describes it:

Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art‘s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition,^[1] which is sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.

Lovely, isn’t it?  There are a couple of take-aways from this story.  Firstly, you dig into any candidates past and you can call their political ideological purity into question.  Secondly is the utter disdain with which the left holds ALL religion  – trying to make hay with a Mormon practice born of concern for the deceased and to literally urinate on a Catholic religious symbol.  Our religious battle is with the left, not each other.

And now the second story line we need to cover, Santorum’s charitable donations.  The Santorum’s gave slightly less than 2% of their income to charity.  One blogger points out there is no Catholic obligation to tithe:

Jennifer Rubin, a pro-Romney conservative blogger at the Washington Post, knocks Rick Santorum for giving too little to charity — less than 3 percent, despite his high six-figure salary.

Rubin writes: “He apparently believes in church doctrine about contraception but not about tithing.”

But to my knowledge, there is no Catholic “doctrine” about tithing. Look in the catechism. Look in code of canon law. You won’t see tithing, or 10 percent show up.

Fair enough – and the last thing I want to do is turn this into a discussion of character or charity – both men, Romney and Santorum, are men of excellent character.

But there are a couple VERY important things to note here.  Tithing is plain letter in the Bible.  (See Leviticus 27 for starters.)  For there not to be an obligation, you have to consult books other than the Bible.  True, the catechism and code of canon law do not claim scriptural levels of authority as does the Book of Mormon, but that is a pretty fine line in this particular discussion – as they are certainly being used in the same fashion.

Secondly, here is  a place where Roman Catholic doctrine is quite divergent from Protestant/Evangelical thought.  I personally have never been to a Stewardship Sunday where I was not urged, and urged hard, to tithe.

I do not want to turn this into a theology or scripture debate – what I do want to do is illustrate the variety of religious expression, even Christian expression.  What I do want to do is point out that backing Santorum over Romney for “religious reasons” is an arbitrary choice, not really a religious one.

Which takes us back to the headline about Evangelicals in Michigan.  There is no “gospel” here.  There are two good men running for the Republican nomination for POTUS.  This is purely a political calculation.  That math is not nearly so complex as the media would have you believe.  Just check the link about Santorum’s lack of organization.

Think hard, and take religion completely out of your thoughts.  There is no room for it here.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Reading List, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

We have written at length here about Obama playing the HHS contraception ruling politically  to muck about  in the Republican primary.  What we have not written about is how the left is having a laugh at our expense.  Rick Santorum, beneficiary of  Obama’s meddling is on record:

“Many of the Christian faith have said … contraception is O.K.,” the former senator said last fall. “It’s not O.K. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” With some pride, Mr. Santorum noted that “no president has talked about” the evils of birth control.

I am gong to have to thread a needle here, but it is an important one.  I understand the Roman Catholic teachings in this matter.  I support fully the Catholic right to practice in accordance with those teachings and I agree that the HHS ruling is a horrific breech of that right.  But what Barack Obama knows and Rick Santorum seems to have forgotten is that most of the nation does not share that particular belief, even fellow Christians.  As such, it is really a part of the private life of the candidate, perhaps POTUS, but it is not stuff for the bully pulpit of the presidency.

I can hear my liberal friends chiming in now, “Well isn’t that the case with abortion and same-sex marriage?”  Not really – the nation remains divided on abortion.  Yes, most people want it but in a far more restrictive fashion than is now the case.  Not to mention that fact that Roe v Wade is just bad law and severely unbalances the constitution.  Same sex marriage challenges the fundamental structure of our society, and shares many of the same “bad law” issues that abortion suffers from.  In both cases there are real policy and political reasons to have the debate even without religious considerations.

As Christians, whether Catholic, Mormon or Evangelical, we tend to live in a bubble – we don’t quite get the liberal viewpoint because we just don’t experience it.  Liberals, frankly, have the same problem.  We all tend to think that our issues are the nation’s issues, but that is often just not the case.  Birth control is a Catholic issue, but it is not a national issue.  That is why it is a relatively safe issue for Obama to use to muck about in our primary, as we said he has nothing to lose.  (I am talking politically here, the ruling is a clear breech of the first amendment and that IS a national issue.)

The lesson to take from his analysis is that if you want your bubble issues to be national issues, you have to get most of the nation into your bubble.  Frankly, when it comes to abortion and same sex marriage, the same logic applies – they would not be issues if most of the nation agreed with us on them.

We cannot look to politics to solve a problem that is really the church’s to solve.  This is what Obama knows and we keep forgetting.  In fact he is relying on our confusion about what is a church issue and what is a political issue to stay in office.

That is worthy of thought as the next primaries move forward.

And Now, A Few More Entries in the “Oh Please?!” Category

Give it up already!  Even Clinton’s “boxers or briefs” question did not get this much coverage – and wasn’t it ruled “unseemly” for a presidential campaign anyway?

Some people think too much.  This piece is designed wholly to hit hot button words.  And speaking of pushing hot buttons that should be dead.

The press keeps goading people into bringing issues long resolved just for sensational religious headlines – enough already.

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