The biggest piece to appear was Jon Meacham’s new piece in Newsweek,”The End of Christian America.”  Typically, the headline grossly overstates Meacham’s thesis.  The article is framed by an extended interview with Al Mohler discussing the results of the recent religious identity survey.  The thesis is essentially:

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago.

I personally do not think this is arguable, nor do I necessarily think it is bad.   There is no question that religious identity is fading in America.  But I think it will be replaced with something important, new and valuable.  Shifts in Christian identity are becoming relatively common in the western world.  The church split between east and west in 400 AD.  The Reformation of the 16th century moved us into an age of Christian pluralism.  The great Awakenings that spread through England and American gave rise to Evangelicalism, and now Evangelicalism is about to be replaced by something else.  When you look at it historically – it is hardly surprising.

What that replacement will be is what is going to be most interesting.  Some say it will be the so-called “emerging church.”  I have my own theories about the role the CJCLDS will play in all this, but my theories offend both Evangelical and Mormon alike, so I will keep them to myself – besides they are theological in nature which we do not do here.

Each of these steps has represented an advancement for the greater Christian church, and I see little reason to think that the shifts currently underway will not do the same thing.  But they also often mark the end of significant cultural and political eras.  The establishment of Constantinople marked the fall of Rome.  The rise of Protestantism changed forever the political landscape of Europe and Evangelicalism came out of the same fires as the American Revolution.  The bigger question is will America survive as we know it with these cultural and political shifts.

That is really a question for people other than this blog – but where we can look here is at the current political landscape and what is likely to occur in the next few elections.   The other important article came from Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post who wonders about a “Political Pullback for the Christian Right.”

Is the Christian right finished as a political entity? Or, more to the point, are principled Christians finished with politics?

These questions have been getting fresh air lately as frustrated conservative Christians question the pragmatism — defined as the compromising of principles — of the old guard. One might gently call the current debate a generational rift.

In some ways Parker’s piece is a bit of fluff.   It just does not go very deep, but that said, it does look at something that appears to be very real.  For an understanding of the generational aspects of this change, I would strongly recommend this article by a young friend of mine by the name of Matt Anderson.  It is not just about “the compromising of principles;” Evangelicalism suffers from a lack of serious thought on any numbers of issues and simply serves as an insufficient platform for cultural engagement for this younger generation.  A generation that has never known a nation without abortion on demand, and has been heavily inculcated with the rhetoric of “gay acceptance” and same-sex marriage.

When you couple that with the obvious failures of Evangelicalism as a political force, especially in the last election cycle, then the simple ebb-and-flow of American politics would tend to force the so-called Religious Right to the sidelines.  For an example of those failures, we need look no farther than this last weekend either.  Saturday, we looked at Kirk Jowers comments on the role religion played in Mitt Romney’s failed campaign last year.   In what is becoming an increasingly common occurrence, The Mormon Times came in on our heels and published a story on similar lines.  Well, the Mormon Times does have a somewhat larger readership than this blog, so their piece attracted some attention – some of it not necessarily wanted.  Sunday, some blog called Sunlit Uplands, reprinted a rant from our old friend Gary Glenn vociferously denying that it was Romney’s religion -stating it was the “flip-flops.”  I will not belabor this in detail,we  have danced this dance with Glenn, but it is a prime example of the kind of ham-fisted politics that have cost those of the Religious Right way more political capital than they can afford.

What is really happening is that religiously-motivated political activists are retrenching and rethinking and in the end will be re-engaging in a smarter, better way.  Matthew Millner recently published an essay at First Things on the value of christian culture, something that Catholics (First Things is a publication with a decidedly Catholic bent) have a much more implicit and deeper understanding of than the average Evangelical.  For Evangelicals, making something “Christian” is something highly akin to the marketing phenomena known as “branding.”  Hang the “Christian” label on it and it simply is therefore Christian.  So, a small figure of a vaguely European child in muted colors, but this time with an inpirational message printed on it somewhere, is no longer a “Hummel” – it’s a bit of “Christian-inspired home art.”

What is a “Christian culture?”  My own understanding of the term is borrowed from C.S. Lewis, who in turn borrows it, after a fashion, from Plato.  Lewis cites his Platonic sources in The Last Battle, the final book of the Narnia series, in which one of the characters says something about “it is all in Plato.”  (Forgive me for not giving a more accurate and full citation here, please remember the whole vacation thing I have going on).  The most read of Lewis’ non-fiction books is Mere Christianity is actually a reprinting of four series of radio talks Lewis gave during  World War II. In the first of these series Lewis discusses what he calls “pre-evangelism.”  This is one simple idea that Lewis contends is built into the world, into creation if you will.  That idea is the existence of an objective morality, that what is good and what is evil is a very part of reality, and is not defined by us, or arbitrarily defined by the will of God.  In other words something is not good because God said it is good, but rather it is good because it conforms to the goodness that exists objectively.  (To get Biblical for a moment – God looked at creation and saw that it was good – He did not simply define it as such.)

Please note that this is very, very different than the typical Evangelical approach to morality and the political codification of same of the last decades wherein we have tried to make a good thing happen because God said it should happen.  Lewis argues (echoing the first chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, again getting Biblical briefly) that this idea of an objective morality is that which calls us to the God of Christianity – hence his labeling it as “pre-evangelism,” and the Platonic parallels since Plato argued this reality was a mere reflection of a higher one.

Lewis, completely absent reliance on Christian doctrine as a source, looks at the ramifications of the abandonment of of the idea of objective morality in a short book called The Abolition of Man.  One need look no further than the title to know what Lewis argues will happen if this idea is abandoned.  Thus we have an argument for a “Christian culture” without direct appeal to divine mandate or holy writ of any sort.

Herein lies the future of religiously motivated political engagement.  So Meacham is right when he opines that culture and politics are no longer so heavily influenced by explicit Christian concerns.   And Parker is probably right that the days of  the “God said so” politics of the Religious Right are drawing to a close.  But that does not mean we are necessarily going to be see huge and radical shifts in our culture, morality, or day-to-day religious lives.  It just means, I believe, that we are getting smarter about such things.  We can and will learn to argue for our political/moral stances on non-religious terms.  We will engage in the pre-evangelical.  We will leave the explicitly evangelical for the house of worship and private conversation.

We may actually become a better nation and better Christians for it.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

On reflection, I think what has happened is that Romney has irrevocably and forever changed the discussion about The Question. (K-Lo seems to agree.)

As John notes below, Romney has drawn a line in the sand, and everyone watching this race — candidates, commentators, or voters– will need to decide which side they are on.

Why? Because Romney has taken the high ground on the issue of religion. From this point on, the following statements from his “Faith in America” speech will guide the discussion:

1. “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

This bold and provocative assertion is a fine example of the line in the sand John references. It has already drawn attack from the left, and probably will as long as Romney is in the race. As for the other Republican candidates, especially Huckabee, they are reduced to saying “me, too.” Romney has occupied the space around the question of religion’s role in civic life. The others can join him in that space, but he was the first to go there.

2. “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”

An even bolder line in the sand. Can anyone be on the other side of this one? Yes, but no one can stand there without first doing some pretty fancy tap-dancing. To argue that a candidate should be rejected because of his or her faith requires a lot of careful parsing of words and qualification of positions. Can any Republican candidate contradict Romney here? It doesn’t seem so; Huckabee, after insistent questioning by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday today, and despite frantic wriggling, was finally forced to concede the point.

3. “As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of ay church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.”

This is one issue that truly is dead after this speech. Any serious candidate who challenges Romney on this point will be reduced to saying that Romney is simply lying – a very difficult burden to carry.

4. “Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people.”

Can you see Mitt Romney, way up there on the high ground? The Dick Morrises of the world, who insist the GOP should not and will not nominate Romney because nominating a Mormon would be to hand the election to the Democrats, now look very small-minded indeed.

5. “I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”

Of course there will be some who want to say, “Yes, but Romney believes in a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible.” They are free to do so, but those who will vote based on that concern are a small minority in any event, and look . . . well, small in making that argument. (There’s Romney again, up there on the high moral ground. Get used to it, everyone.)

6. “No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”This is a brilliant two-line argument. Romney makes an entirely reasonable assertion, one that almost everyone will accept: Candidates don’t and shouldn’t speak for their churches. Then he makes that assertion an imperative of leadership and unity: The president needs everyone’s prayers, because we’re all in this together as people of faith.

Of course Huckabee is eager to say that he will speak for his faith and the other candidates should speak for theirs. Which approach do you think will wear best with the electorate-Romney’s high-mindedness or Huckabee’s cynical slickness?

7. “It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.”

The reference to a “creed” is a bit sly; many Evangelicals emphasize that Mormonism’s rejection of the great Christian creeds separates the Latter-day Saints from orthodox Christianity, and the LDS readily agree. But Romney is once again up there on the mountaintop, urging ‘religious people,” in civic affairs, to focus on what unites us more than what divides us. Again, no one can challenge this without looking small; no one can agree without being in a “me too” position.

8. “Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

“These are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation.”

This is the kind of language that will end up chiseled on the walls of the W. Mitt Romney Presidential Library, if there ever is one. They are presidential words. As John remarked to me while we filed out of the auditorium at the Bush Library, Romney was speaking to the nation the way a president does.

Going forward, any discussion of The Question will be framed by the statements above, as well as the other marked Romney laid down about secularism — markers no other candidate in this election, Republican or Democrat, has even mentioned seriously yet.

With this one speech Romney has gone from being the punching bag on religious issues to the thought leader on those same issues. It’s an impressive tour de force. If you’ll forgive a purely partisan statement, based on what I know about Mitt Romney, I have a hunch we’ll see more of this kind of leadership as the campaign unfolds.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The ad will begin airing today in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. What will the response be from conservatives who are religious people? Will it be, “Yes! That’s the kind of candidate I want!” Or will it be, “That’s nice, but . . . .?”

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

How can I, in good conscience, vote for someone whose beliefs are very different than mine?

Why would your conscience be troubled?  You are voting for someone to do the job of president, not pastor.  You are voting for the individual, not his beliefs.  Can he do the job?  Will he do the job in a way that aligns with my principles and values?  Those are the questions that matter.  When hiring someone for my business, those are the question I ask.  Of course, I would prefer someone that believes as I do, but often I find candidates much better qualified for the job with other, or more frequently simply without, beliefs.  I frankly would be foolish to hire a lesser qualified candidate to operate a soil sampling drill rig simply because the best candidate was a Jehovah’s Witness instead of a Presbyterian.

People’s beliefs really matter in their lives, and Mormons believe so differently.

Indeed Mormon belief is quite different, but how precisely does that matter?  It is my opinion that Mormon belief is grossly misunderstood.  It is not orthodox by any stretch of the imagination, but it is not so far off as the common perception might suggest.  Consider the Godhead, to use the LDS term.  Mormons are decidedly non-Trinitarian, fair enough.  But does that make a difference in how a Mormon would govern?  I don’t think so.  Are our values based on our Trinitarian views? - No.  Our values are largely based on the Judaic law, which is in turn based on monotheism, but not Trinitarianism.  Some try to paint Mormons as polytheists, and the strictest possible interpretation of their theology of the godhead would indicate they are, but I have read enough Mormon theologians to know they do not carry their views of the godhead that far.  Ask any Mormon if they are polytheistic and they will deny it vociferously.  At best we can accuse them of having lousy logic in their theological formulations, but in practice and life they are little different than us.  Please remember they hold the same scripture we do, plus  “The Lord your God is ONE God” is scripture for Mormons just as much as it is for us.  The additional scripture of Mormonism does not to the best of my knowledge contradict a word of the Bible – they interpret it very differently, but that is not a critical matter in this instance.

So, my question to you – specifically what is it that Mormons believe, as cited by Mormons, not anti-Mormon activists, that will affect how they govern?  My researches of the last year and 100 years of Utah history says that they govern just like we do.

If you are still concerned, consider:

How do you feel when atheists say you should not vote for X because he is a Christian?  This is America; our freedom to practice our faith is highly dependent on the freedom to have religious diversity in all areas of society, including government.  If we, even in the privacy of the voting booth, exclude someone of another faith, then we are giving permission to allow others to exclude us.  And we are increasingly in the minority in this nation . . . .

Technorati Tags: Mormons, belief, difference, Evangelicals, Mitt Romney

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

But back to Romney: If the Mormon issue wasn't floating around in the background, he would almost certainly be the clear frontrunner for the nomination. Expect to see Romney's stock continue to rise as many conservatives unhappy with the prospect of McCain or Giuliani start to line up behind the Massachusetts Governor.

"If the Mormon issue wasn't floating around in the background." If McIntyre is right, then we really have come to a place where the only thing standing between Romney and front-runner status as a presidential candidate is . . . his religion. As much as my mind rebels against such a thought, politics is the ultimate realists' game. It doesn't matter whether it's fair or right for Romney's religion to be so important; if that's the way it is, then that fact must be dealt with. What does this mean?

Leaving aside the question of whether pundits should raise the "Mormon issue" in such a cavalier manner, which John addresses toward the end of this post, here are a few ideas:

• If Romney does start to look more and more like a front-runner, then attacks on him will proliferate. No one will directly attack him for being a Mormon, but whisper campaigns may be attempted. The problem with whisper campaigns is that they are effective only in short-term situations (such as the last few weeks before a primary election). When there's time for the whispers to be countered, the effort usually peters out, and 2008 is still quite a ways off.
• He can probably expect more subtle attacks, such as this rather clever piece by a Gingrich operative, who suggests that Romney is the candidate of the blueblood elites– the modern-day Rockefeller Republicans. Trouble is, as a Mormon, Romney's already an outsider to the world of bluebloods; his only Ivy League connections are in graduate school; he didn't go to Yale and does not belong to Skull and Bones; and he's probably not even in the Bohemian Club either (too much drinking there, you know). So that one won't stick, but others will be attempted.

• Back to the religion issue. Would it receive such attention if pundits didn't bring it up all the time? Maybe not, but remember, politics is a realists' game. My hunch is that after all is said and done, Romney's Mormonism will simply die out as an issue in the GOP primaries. His lifestyle and wordlview are too simpatico with those of the religious conservatives who might care about a candidate's faith. If he's nominated by the GOP, Romney will be viciously and openly attacked by the Daily Kos crowd, who will paint him as a homophobe for his stand on same-sex marriage, a bigot because of Mormonism's all-male priesthood and its former policy on African-Americans and the priesthood, and who knows what else. Expect them to try to make him look like the American version of the Taliban. Will any of that stick? I am doubtful; time will tell. But it's going to be an interesting ride.

John adds: Lowell beat me to the punch on this one, frankly it honked me off when I read it very early this AM. Here's the thing. There appears to be two different attacks on the religion front. The first is from the left, who frankly cannot tell the difference between Romney and an Evangelical – their worry is that he will be more committed to the issues than a "normal" Evangelical. It's a blanket religion attack – it's the same attack that Bush had to deal with. It's the same attack Republicans will be dealing with as long as they remain closely aligned with religious interests.

The other attack, and the one that really bothers me, is what I call "The Question." It's from the right, it's from within. Everybody loves Romney, then comes one of Laura Ingraham's "But…Monkeys." "Can a Mormon get elected?" Nobody actually knows, but they have to ask.

I truly wonder if it has occurred to anybody that the mere asking creates and fuels the issue – an issue is, after all, a question the political process seeks to answer. While I was reflecting on McIntyre's piece this morning I think I figured out what needs to happen here. The Commmonwealth PAC needs to pay for a real study, not a quick phone poll, but a real study where polling is used to form focus groups, put together demographically, and get some genuine data.

Right now, from a purely political standpoint the only issue in terms of the primaries is "The Question." And that exists only in minds of the political watchers. I am beginning to resent it because it implies that Evangelicals are some sort of semi-bigoted rubes. "Of course, all we political insiders know it's not really an issue – but the great unwashed masses, are they really that sophisticated?" Either the insiders really do have a problem with Romney's religious affiliation, and they have found "safe" way to express it, or there is a problem. If the former, it's time for Romney to get busy dealing with them. We need data to even know how to proceed with the later – and the insiders above all should know that!

We are a humble blog and lack the resources to do the kind of polling and testing needed, but the insiders most assuredly do not. It's time for them to stop asking and start answering.

Lowell: I wish I had said that. Simply tossing the issue into a piece that is about something else seems intellectually lazy and borderline irresponsible. Further analysis from a pro-Romney site here.

John's Addendum: I have summarized my evidentiary support for the assertion that no one really knows if Romney's faith is an issue here.

Technorati Tags: Romney, Giuliani; Gingrich, George Allen, McCain, Mormon, Mormonism, religious bigotry, Rockefeller Republicans

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The plan is an excellent, provided that one accepts that health care is an entitlement. I realize that such acceptance is a public reality and a political necessity, and yet I am unwilling to make it personally. While not a libertarian on most things, I find myself passionately libertarian when it comes to matters of health and health care.

Before I launch into this completely, I want to state that I do not think the nightmarish problems that I am concerned with are the intention of Romney or anyone else that brought the new system to pass. But there is such a thing as the Law of Unintended Consequences. Who knew that the welfare system of the early 60's would result in the virtual destruction of traditional family structure in the poor of America and particularly in the Afro-American community?

One's health is, save perhaps for one's spiritual state, the most personal aspect of one's life. What we eat, how we spend our free time, who we have in our bedrooms, all are issues related to health and health care. As health care becomes an entitlement, the providers of that entitlement will be obligated to control the costs and one way they will do so is by trying to control these very private choices of an individual.

For example, because HIV is primarily transmitted via homosexual activity, would not health care providers seek to limit such activity? Conservatives might not mind that too much, so let's look at some other examples. The Hindu religion mandates vegetarianism, at least some forms of it. Suppose this diet was shown to have health ramifications – now what? Can we force Hindus to eat meat, or can we force everyone to become Hindu? What about the use of psychotropic drugs by some religions? And those are just the obvious examples. What about family size limitations? Do we really want to end up like China?

Some recent studies attribute long life to religious faith – shall faith now be a government mandate? If so what religion? These kinds of things are being discussed today. We've seen it with smoking and now we are seeing it with weight. When health care is an entitlement, you are required to have policies about things that the government just should not be having policies about – personal, private matters. Thus, while I think Romney's plan is excellent if we accept healthcare as an entitlement, I think it is a mistake to do so.

Lowell: I've spent the last 20+ years in the heath care industry, so this is an issue near and dear to my heart. John has identified the most common "hot button" objection to Romney's plan: The "individual mandate," which requires everyone to have health insurance of some kind, much like many states require everyone to have auto insurance. The new Massachusetts law is described in (somewhat wonkish) detail here. (Full disclosure: The last link is to a newsletter published by my law firm, and in which I had a hand.)

The Romney plan does get a mixed reaction in the conservative community. The individual mandate is anathema to libertarians; but the plan was crafted in close cooperation with the Heritage Foundation, an organization with impecable conservative credentials. My response to John is long, but I'll summarize here:

First, I feel your pain. I am not in love with the idea of the government requiring citizens to spend money on an item as personal as health insurance. I also am worreid about the unintended consequences.

Second, however, I think the pain is necessary. The auto insurance analogy is useful in this regard: As a society in which the automobile is a ubiquitous and indispensible element of our lives and our economy, we have come to accept the fact that the costs to all of us from a libertarian approach to auto insurance would be catastrophic. (A libertarian purist would disagree with that statement, but I think I'm right.)

Similarly, the health care industry now represents about 16% of our gross domestic product. It is simply a huge part of our lives. Also, and just as important, I believe we have made a decision as a society that everyone is entitled to a minimum level of health care. One can disagree with that decision, but I believe it has been made; it might well be described as part of the American social compact by now.

Given that, I do not see the U.S. returning to Charles Dickens' England, where people had to depend on the mercy of others to get good care. (I know John is not even close to arguing for that; it's simply a point of contrast.) In other words, we are simply not going to tolerate a system in which people will be forced to do without health care. There is a religious component to this view (witness the many Catholic and Adventist hospitals in existence), as well as a social democratic "nanny state" element, but it is undeniably woven into the fabric of our society.

My opinion: Given the immutable nature of that societal compact, the Romney plan is an ingenious form of social policy jiu-jitsu that turns us away from creeping socialist approach and actually incorporates free market principles of individual autonomy, even as it encroaches on citizens' freedom not to have health insurance. The Heritage Foundation notes the Romney plan's achievements:

1. Creation of a new market for health insurance in which individuals and families can buy pri­vate coverage of their choice, own it, and take it from job to job without losing the existing favorable tax treatment for employer-spon­sored health insurance, and

2. Creation of a new system of premium assis­tance for lower-income individuals to purchase private coverage based on leveraging existing uncompensated care funds used to cover the cost of care for the uninsured.

"These two components," say the Heritage authors,

could revolutionize the traditional health care system by empowering individuals, including low-income persons, to buy and own their health care coverage, and they can be adapted to the unique conditions of other states.

So the Romney healthcare plane is a mixed bag. There's that non-libertarian individual mandate, but there's so much more that empowers individuals, which at the same time just might solve the problem of the uninsured in this country. If the plan works, 95% of Massachusetts citizens will have insurance within three years, and they'll have it in a free market, not in a single payer health system like Britain's disastrous National Health Service or the quickly deteriorating Canadian system.

As for the religion angle, as long as we have a plan that incorporates individual autonomy with market principles, the chance that unintended consequences, of which Jon rightly warns, will encroach on our personal beliefs seems pretty small. But it's an experiment. Let's see how it unfolds. If the Massachusetts system fails in the short term, Romney's fortunes will take a huge, probably unsurvivable hit. If it succeeds or is perceived as succeeding, he'll be sitting pretty.

Technorati Tags: healthcare, Romney, freedom, restriction, personal choice

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The term theocrat has become a commonplace, employed by bomb-throwing columnists, otherwise-sensible reporters, and “centrist” Republicans such as Connecticut’s Christopher Shays, who recently complained that the GOP was becoming the “party of theocracy.” And now the specter of a looming Khomeini’ism has migrated into the realm of pop sociology, producing a spate of books with titles like The Baptizing of America, Kingdom Coming, Thy Kingdom Come—and, inevitably, American Theocracy, the Kevin Phillips jeremiad that shot to the top of the New York Times bestseller list this spring.

Kind of strikes a familiar chord, doesn't it?  The second excerpt is one of Douthat's concluding paragraphs:

So the rise of the Religious Right, and the growing “religion gap” that Phillips describes but fails to understand, aren’t new things in American history but a reaction to a new thing: to an old political party newly dependent on a bloc of voters who reject the role that religion has traditionally played in American political life. The hysteria over theocracy, in turn, represents an attempt to rewrite the history of the United States to suit these voters’ prejudices, by setting a year zero somewhere around 1970 and casting everything that’s happened since as a battle between progress and atavism, reason and fundamentalism, the Enlightenment and the medieval dark.

As both John and I have argued here several times, whether the GOP nominee is Romney or someone else, if that nominee is an unabashedly religious person, the fearsome attacks will come from the left, and from the kinds of writers who authored the books Douthat reviews. If Romney is in fact the nominee, any attacks on his Mormon faith from evangelicals during the GOP primaries will seem like child's play compared to what the Daily Kos fever swamp, and the likes of Kevin Phillips, will dish up.   Update:  John notes below that calling attacks from some evangelicals "child's play" tends to understate the level of venom they will carry.  Good point.  What I am saying is that as terrible as those intra-religious attacks will be, I think the eventual attacks from the left will be farther beyond the pale than we can even imagine now.  I hope I'm wrong. I hope I've whetted your appetite for Douthat's entire article.  It's well worth your time. John adds: I agree it is an excellent piece, and I agree that any GOP nominee of strongly identifiable faith, Mormon or creedal Christian, will suffer massive attacks from the anti-religious left, but I am not yet entirely convinced that attacks on Romney from the Evangelical right will be "child's play" – that's a very strong phrase.  There is little more potentially venomous confrontation  in the world than a believer attacking a "competing" believer.  I am increasingly convinced that the size of the group on the right that would carry out such attacks is not as large as feared, so the attacks may not be that effective, but measured in pure venom…

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

None of this is biblical and I consider it to be an apostate religion. I know the Mormons are fine, upstanding citizens of this country, but I cannot support a man who is a member of a cult and doesn’t know it. I believe our country has been blessed because of our Judeo/Christian beliefs that there is One God. Our God is not flesh and bones, Satan is not His son but is a fallen angel, Jesus was conceived by Mary through the Holy Spirit in what we call the Immaculate Conception. Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus and remained so until after His birth. These are some of the reasons I cannot support this man for public office–especially the most important office in our land. I want to keep God’s blessings on our country and knowing what I do know about the Mormon faith I fail to see how God would not be displeased with such a decision by His creation.

I really hate to break it to my creedal Christian brethren/sistren here, but Romney, or any other hypothetical Mormon president, would hardly be the first "apostate" to hold office and yet our nation has been and continues to be blessed beyond all others. From Jefferson's Universalist faith, to Eisenhower's Jehovah's Witness background, to Kennedy's rather hedonistic form of Catholicism, Presidents whom fundamentalist Christians (such as those who wrote the above post) would consider apostate are numerous. Given that fact, and despite their claims to the contrary, can their objections to a Mormon candidate be other than bigoted? I also find the reference to "Judeo/Christian beliefs" fascinating. Theologically, Judaism and Christianity are almost as diverse and Christianity and Mormonism, what they hold in common is an ethical/value structure. Current CJCLDS adherents hold that very same ethical/value structure. Why would a logical God withhold blessing because of one set of theological disagreements, but not do so because of another? Despite the writers' claim to a lack of bigotry, I cannot find anything in this post that is other than pure prejudice. The entire argument is based on the cultic status mainstream and evangelical Christians grant to the Mormon faith. I don't like the term "cult" much, in the early days of the church, Christianity was a Jewish "cult" – the term is used as a perjorative and does not properly examine the genuine issues that confront differing faiths, and in this instance political decisions. All this said, people are going to think what they want and vote as they see fit, but I do think it important that when sloppy thinking rears its head in print, we address it and correct it. If Romney's faith lead him to stances on issue with which I had major disagreement, then I would need to oppose him – but I see no evidence of that here. Which brings me back full circle to opposition from the left to a Mormon candidate BECAUSE of that candidate's stances on issues, and because their religion supports and informs those stances. As conservatives we spend a lot of time and energy decrying the irreligious left and their stances on particularly social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage – and we accuse them of religious prejudice! And yet their bias against religion is based on achieving their political aims – right wing evangelical bias against a Mormon is based solely on religion, for we share the same politcal aims. Is that not somehow an even more heinous form of prejudice than what is practiced by the left? What is the goal of the religious right? Politically, I think it is to have a social environment where our religious beliefs can flourish, and we can have the freedom to spread those beliefs as far as we can. When we have a bias against a particular religion solely on the basis of that religion's belief, are we not creating the same stifling effect we accuse the left of creating? Is that smart?

Technorati Tags: faith, politics, apostasy, Mormon, evangelical, Romney

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll contacted 1,321 adults nationwide by telephone June 24 through 27. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation, and random-digit dialing techniques allowed listed and unlisted numbers to be contacted. Multiple attempts were made to contact each number. Results were weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and region. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups, the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results may also be affected by such factors as question wording and the order in which questions were presented.

What's the political affiliation of the respondants for crying out loud?  Think about it! – If the vast majority of respondents were Democrats, don't you think this might skew the results just a bit?  What's the affect of other consideration of the answers – How does the question play when he is confronted with different opponents? So, the conclusion of this contributer to this blog, is that this poll was a "make news" poll – something that reporters could use to as a lever to get interviews with people on Romney and his religion – purely to bring up Romney's religion.  The point of the poll was purely as a basis for comment by the various experts cited in  the story.  As evidence I point to the fact that no other major news outlet has carried a story on it, though blogs have commented greatly – like this peice for example. (I agree with the criticism of Romney's religion strategy entirely, by the way.) After reading the story and researching whatever is available on the internet, I come away knowing no more than I knew before.  There is a significant group of people for whom Romney's religion is an issue, but is it enough to really affect the outcome of the election, or under what conditions it could, we are left clueless. In the end it seems this was a poll designed to, if at all possible, MAKE Romeny's religion an issue, or at least religion in general an issue.  This, dear reader, is how the legacy media exercises its bias.

Technorati Tags: polling. Mormon, religion, Muslim, evangelical, Romney, voting, voters, voting patterns

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

There are two definitions of the word “Christian” that are important to this discussion:

1. One common definition is that a Christian is simply one who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ as one’s personal Savior and the Savior of all mankind. Arguably, that is the commonly-understood meaning of the word. (A much simpler and broader variation appears in most dictionaries: “One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”) Using either the common definition or its broader variation, there is no doubt that Mormons are Christians.

2. A second definition is important to many people, perhaps especially those who pay close attention to certain doctrinal differences: To be truly Christian one must believe in a particular written creed or declaration of belief, such as the Apostles’ Creed or The Lausanne Covenant. Mormons do not accept everything in both of those declarations. (The difference of views centers on the nature of the Godhead.) That has led many to take the position that Mormons are not Christians.

Mormons find that conclusion deeply hurtful, because their belief in Christ is at the center of their faith. When casual observers hear or read that a particular church is not Christian, to them that means the church does not teach belief in Christ– like Buddhism or Islam. To Mormons, that is a terrible misconception of their deepest and most cherished belief. In this blog’s view, when many other Christians, whether or not evangelicals, describe Mormons as non-Christians, they do not mean to offend. They are simply using definition no. 2 above, and their terminology is accurate.

The problem is this: Many, if not most, people do not make the fine distinction between Christians as believers in Christ and Christians as believers in certain doctrines of creedal Christianity. They think “non-Christian” means “non-believer.” On this blog, we will try avoid falling into the trap of imprecision by using the terms “Mormon,” “non-creedal Christian,” and “Latter-day Saint” to describe members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or “CJCLDS.” We’ll use “creedal Christians“ to describe members of those other denominations who accept a Christian creed. We won’t refer simply to “Mormons and Christians” as two separate groups.

We think this is approach is accurate and inoffensive to all interested in the discussion. On one side, Mormons freely acknowledge that they are not in doctrinal agreement with most of creedal Christianity on certain points– after all, that’s a fundamental characteristic of Mormonism. On the other side, informed creedal Christians do not dispute that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, and surely do not want to leave an erroneous impression in the minds of casual observers. If you have questions about this rule of usage, please let us know using the “e-mail us” button above.

Technorati Tags: evangelicals, Mormons, Mormonism, Christians, Christianity defined, Apostles’ Creed, Lausanne Covenant

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.