Article VI Blog

Theocracy! Theocracy! Theocracy! by Ross Douthat, is the featured article in the August/September issue of First Things.  I heartily recommend the entire article, in which Douthat reviews four books attacking the rise of religious influence in American politics.  Here are two excerpts.  The first tells you where Douthat is going:

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…

Posted in Issues, Notables, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I am on vacation and not supposed to be posting, but I ran into a piece that I feel like it really is my job to respond to and this post just sort of blossomed from there. Romney and the religion issue is beginning to complicate. Recent polling data may indicate his problem is as much, or even more, from the left than from the evangelical right. (The Salt Lake Trib has gotten a look at the breakouts.) I ran across this post which is a classic example of how left opposition to Romney's faith might look. Interesting as this development is, it is not what has caused me to break my hiatus … … This is –a post from clearly devoted creedal Christian people about why they cannot possibly support a Romney candidacy. The post contains not a single word about policy, issues, campaigns, elections, parties, planks, or anything else that contributes to the actual governing of the country. Here is the money quote:

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? [tags]faith, politics, apostasy, Mormon, evangelical, Romney[/tags]

Posted in Notables, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Over the weekend, the LATimes/Bloomberg released the results of a poll it took on how religion affects voting.  Here is the LA Times telling and here is the Bloomberg.  At this point, I am not sure there is much that can be said based on the poll.  It appears to be of "voters", but I can find no information about how those people were defined.  In fact, I can't find the raw poll at all.  This may, in fact, explain the LA Times story which has a few paragraphs on the results and then turns the story into a discussion amongst experts on whether Romney has a problem or not. So many questions are not answered, most importantly information about the people saying they would not vote for a Mormon, or an evangelical Christian, or a Muslim.  Is the 37% that would not vote for a Mormon of one or a few specific groups?  Are the 21% that say they would not vote for an evangelical Christian all members of MoveOn.org, perhaps contributers to Daily Kos?  Are these likely voters or registered voters?   How much overlap is there between the 37% and the 21%?  Many people would not make the distinction.  Here is the brief section on how the poll was conducted:

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. [tags]polling. Mormon, religion, Muslim, evangelical, Romney, voting, voters, voting patterns[/tags]

Posted in Notables, Political Strategy | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

This blog is not the place for sectarian arguments; the authors’ goal is to avoid such battles here. Toward that end, we need to explain one rule of usage we will follow: The meaning of the words “Mormon” and “Christian,” at least on this blog. Our goal is to promote clarity and keep misunderstandings to a minimum.

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.

[tags]evangelicals, Mormons, Mormonism, Christians, Christianity defined, Apostles’ Creed, Lausanne Covenant [/tags]

Posted in Notables, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

On Monday – Mitt Romney appeared on Charlie Rose.  We are going to reprint here a section of the transcript of that interview pertinent to this blog. (You can order the whole transcript here.)  It's something to think about over the weekend.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Let`s talk about something that`s come up time and again — or not constantly, but from time to time.  And that`s your religion.  You`re a Mormon.  You`ve talked about it.  Religion hasn`t really played a big role in American presidential politics since John Kennedy ran as a Catholic back in 1960.  Do you think it would play a big role if you ran?

MITT ROMNEY:  Oh, I think initially some people would say, gosh, I don`t know much about your faith.  Tell me about it.  And I`d probably outline the fundamentals.  I`m a religious person.  I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior.  But then as you get into the details of doctrines, I`d probably say look, time out.  Let`s focus on the values that we share.  And fundamentally the values of my faith are very much like the values of other Judeo-Christian traditions. And I think Americans want to have a leader who is a person of faith.  But they`re not going to get terribly involved in the differences of doctrine as long as the values we share are common.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  John Kennedy, we remember, looked for and found a venue to talk about his Catholic faith:  the Houston ministry is a very famous speech that he gave.  Would you look for a place to make a statement about this?  And are you looking for the right place and time?

MITT ROMNEY:  Not really.  Not at this stage.  You know, it`s possible that there will become some point where there`s a question that galvanizes interest, and there`s an occasion to say something that cuts through the confusion that may develop.  But at this stage, it`s kind of hard to predict what will happen. You know, I remember in the race with Ronald Reagan, it was in his debate when he said, you know, I`m not going to let your youth and inexperience become an issue in this campaign.  That sort of put aside his age issue.  And there may well be something of that nature. I just don`t think Americans will do something the Constitution forbids.  The Constitution says that there`s no religious test shall ever be required for qualification to office in these United States.  And I don`t think my party or the American people would ever do that.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  But there are some aspects of Mormonism that many Americans might not understand.  The belief that Jesus Christ will appear again in the state of Missouri, or that God has a material body that he was fathered by another God.  Are these legitimate issues for people to ask you about?

MITT ROMNEY:  Well, there`s a leap of faith associated with every religion.  You haven`t exactly got those doctrines right, but if you have doctrines you want to talk about, go talk to the church.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  OK.

MITT ROMNEY:  Because that`s not my job.  But the most unusual thing in my church is that we believe there was once a flood upon the earth and that a man took a boat and put two of each animal inside the boat and saved humanity by doing that.  Look, there are unusual…

JUDY WOODRUFF:  We`re familiar with that.

MITT ROMNEY:  There are unusual beliefs associated with each faith.  And I`m proud of my faith and happy to talk to people about it.  But fundamentally, my race for governor, my race for senator before that, and if I run nationally is going to be about the values that I have, the values that I think should be emphasized in this country, and answers to the kinds of challenges we face.  Because America is really at a critical time.  And I believe that those are the issues that people will focus on.

[tags]Romney. interview, Charlie Rose, religion, politics[/tags]

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Notables, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

John's post just below actually raises three sub-topics. It's important that I get this reponse right — fair, honest, and accurate — and I must do so in limited space. Not an easy task! First, as John acknowledges, people are flawed , regardless of their religious faith. I run into Mormons now and then who have hateful or racist attitudes, and it's embarrassing. But I can confidently assure you all that racism is not institutional in my church; it is more a function of isolated individual backwardness. I think you run into that in any denomination, to some extent. Second, LDS Church history on race issues is problematic for many observers. Why? This official church statement explains:

Until 1978, black male members of the Church were not ordained to the lay priesthood. That position was changed by revelation on 8 June 1978, when Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th president of the Church, announced that the "long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" (Official Declaration 2). The Church views all humankind as children of the same Heavenly Father, literally brothers and sisters. As stated by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1987: "We repudiate efforts to deny to any person his or her inalienable dignity and rights on the abhorrent and tragic theory of the superiority of one race or color over another."

Once the policy was changed in 1978, African-American (and African) membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CJCLDS) practically exploded. (I discuss this further below under the third issue.) Incidentally, I as began preparing this post, I learned that in June 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention "voted . . . to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery." (I am not criticizing anyone or making sectarian comparisons, just noting with interest that Mormonism is not the only religion facing questions about racism in its past.) Third, the reality is that Mormon culture is simply not racist. In other words, that's just not the way Mormons live. You can ask just about any African-American member of the church if I am right about that. I've never seen cultural racism in the church, even during my youth in Salt Lake City, where spent my first 26 years. Growing up, I did see individual cases of racism, much of which was probably driven by ignorance– there are still comparatively few African-Americans in Utah. I had one black classmate in elementary school and two in high school. I was not surrounded by prejudice, just unfamiliarity and some ignorance. I've lived the second half of my life in Los Angeles. Here, in my own Mormon congregations, I am surrounded by black LDS members. It's just part of Mormon life here. Myths to the contrary notwithstanding, the Mormon church is simply not a lily-white institution; of our 14 million members worldwide, in fact, the biggest single ethnic group is Hispanic. Race is simply not an issue among our people; our lay leaders are often black. That reality is not limited to Los Angeles by any means. Here's a New York Times article about the mostly black LDS congregation (called a "ward") in Harlem. The church is growing rapidly in Africa. There's now a Mormon temple (a very significant building) in Nigeria. These are all developments we only dreamed of prior to 1978. There is a supportive black culture within the church. For example, here's the web site of the Genesis Group, an organization of African-American Mormons. A brief visit will give you a feel for the group's spiritual core. Those are interesting aspects of modern Mormon racial life, but what is most important is the current stance of the church and the behavior of its members. Here's what the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, stated just over a month ago in the General Conference meeting of the Church:

When a man grows old he develops a softer touch, a kindlier manner. [President Hinckley is 95 years old.] I have thought of this much of late. I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. . . . Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord. Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. . . . Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children. Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

Mormons (including me) consider President Hinckley a prophet of God, and that it is as important for us to heed his counsel as it was for the Israelites to listen to Moses, or for the early Christians to listen to the apostles Peter or Paul. So the statement above is deeply significant for all of us. Will this be an issue for Romney's campaign? I don't think so. For the reasons stated above, the charge that he is a member of a racist church will not stick. Nor will be be susceptible to a charge of personal racial bias. Romney's own father was able to distance himself from the policy, even in 1968, when he ran for president, and Romney's own life and persona are free from anything even hinting of racism. Coincidentally, I managed to call in to the Hugh Hewitt show today while Hugh was interviewing John Podhoretz. I asked Podhoretz about his recent statement that he did not think the country was ready for a Mormon president (or a Jewish one, for that matter).  Here's how Radio Blogger reports our exchange:

LB: Hugh, while I was on hold, I thought of another question other than the one I was going to ask. Have you guys talked about Mitt Romney yet? HH: No, but go ahead. LB: I know that John made a comment that he wasn't…he had no opposition to anybody on the basis of their religion, and even as a Jew himself, he didn't think a Mormon could be elected president. I wanted to get his comment on that. HH: That's right. Last time, and I forgot to ask you that. JP: That's right. HH: And you said…so please explain why. JP: Okay. My general view is that 74% of the country is identified as Christian in the traditional definition of the term Protestant or Catholic, 2% Jewish, 1 1/2% Mormon. and it is my considered opinion that members of a minority…that this country is not ready to elect a member of a minority religion for president, that this is one of the defining characteristics that people look for in commonality in a president, is a kind of commonality of belief. And having a different prophetic system from conventional Christianity, that as people come to learn about…this will be an educated moment for people about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and that it will…they won't reject it, but they…and they won't even be alienated by it. They'll just think that it's a different faith from theirs, and they will not feel a commonality about it.

Hugh asked for my response:

HH: Lowell, your response? Lowell's himself LDS. LB: I am, yeah. I guess I can understand exactly what John's saying. The only response I would have is that Romney is such a…as an individual, such a warm, motherhood, apple pie, Mr. America kind of person, that I do wonder if he couldn't overcome that, if he could get his persona out enough. But I'm not sure.

John's reply, in essence, was that so few Americans are Mormons (or Jews) that voters cannot get to the comfort level necessary to vote for Romney– or for a Jewish candidate:

JP: Well, I mean, no one is, and this'll be an interesting experiment. This is not, by the way, this is no analogy to, say, Kennedy in 1960, and the idea that he might have fealty to Rome, and not to America. This is really about what it is that people see in the people that they vote for. And I think they want to see some part of themselves in…

Both religions, John thinks, are just too different for too many voters. Hugh offered the contrasting view that if Romney can convince Christian voters he shares their values, he'll get past the religion issue:

HH: But what Matthew Dowd has argued is that if…not about Romney, but about generally, is that you must persuade voters that you value what they value. And there, he has the opportunity to cross that bridge, if he explains that while the Mormon faith is very different, and he has to explain that the Mormon faith is very different from what a Presbyterian believes or a Catholic, that nevertheless, I value what you value.

The J-Pod rejoinder:

JP: I just want to give you one quick thing. Joe Lieberman was a figure, worshipped in the Democratic Party in 2000, before he became a controversial figure as he is now in the Democratic Party. He declared his intention to run for candidacy as President. He was the second most famous politician in the Democratic Party. And he never got over 10% support in polls of Democratic primary voters. Why? Because he was a member of a minority religion.

I agree with Hugh; we'll be blogging more about that later. I hope this helps. Comment away on the forum!

Posted in Notables, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post