Article VI Blog

Starting With Our Friend Mike Huckabee . . .

The Huckster was typically petulant about his non-appearance at CPAC last weekend.   Of course, such a  “rift” among Republicans is cause for a story from the press.  Which leads me to this bit by James Lewis at “American Thinker:”

See a pattern? If they can’t win honestly, the Left is happy to split the conservative vote by hook or by crook. They do it all the time.

Which leads me to wonder whose side the Huckster is on anyway?  And while we are discussing Huck it seems that he was in Iowa this week, and according to the Des Moines Register, “shows no signs of running for president.“  The picture at left here is what appeared with the piece.  It put me in mind of the oft-repeated quote from Haley Barbour at CPAC last weekend, “If you see me lose 40 pounds, you’ll know I’m running for president….”

I’d say the Register is dead nuts on with that one.

The Book Tour Begins . . .

Actually not.  The tour for No Apology does not officially kick off until 3/13 in SLC, but the pre-release copies are out and the discussion is getting hot and heavy.  Not to mention, Romney is on Letterman next week.  The discussion of the week concerned Romney’s assertion in the book that the White House is “calling shots” at GM.   I thought this NRO “Planet Gore” post took care of that pretty readily.

One more thing before we leave Romney:  Was the rapper/plane incident pivotal?  My thought is that if you are the kind of person that thinks TMZ is “news” then maybe, but if you are someone that actually pays attention to things like issues, probably not.

The Others . . .

Thoughts on Mitch Daniels.  Interesting – good stuff, but I’m telling you, if Daniels runs this time it will be with a gun to his head.  Not a winning formula.

Palin continues to poll.

Read this and remember.  Marc Ambinder, while very smart, is a leftie with a vested interest in stirring the Republican pot.

Our best sources tell us Thune is in, so this is more than “buzz.”

Religion and Politics . . .

There was a conference between Catholics and Mormons this week at BYU.  Here’s the Deseret News coverage and the audio and video is here.

“In recent years, Catholics and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have stood more frequently side by side in the public square to defend human life and dignity,” Cardinal Francis George told nearly 12,000 students, faculty and community members gathered Tuesday at BYU.

“I’m personally grateful that after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see each other as trustworthy partners in defense of shared moral principles.”

You know, Evangelicals might find themselves on the outside looking in when it comes to political activism when solid alliances like this get built.

According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, secularism is not all it’s cracked up to be.

American foreign policy is handicapped by a narrow, ill-informed and “uncompromising Western secularism” that feeds religious extremism, threatens traditional cultures and fails to encourage religious groups that promote peace and human rights, according to a two-year study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

The council’s 32-member task force, which included former government officials and scholars representing all major faiths, delivered its report to the White House on Tuesday. The report warns of a serious “capabilities gap” and recommends that President Obama make religion “an integral part of our foreign policy.”

And note that religion generally, NOT religion specifically, is what matters.  Because tying religion and politics too tightly is not good for religion either.  It is interesting that in the UK, conservatives are suspicious of religious influence.  (HT: Ross Douthat)

That also seems to be a concern among younger Evangelicals in this country.  My friend Matt Anderson thinks the problem is the appropriation of religious language for discussing American exceptionalism.  I think such a mixture of language is unavoidable.  It’s where the whole problem we look at on this blog arises.  For the average American politics, patriotism, and religion are matters to a great extent of faith.  Most people, through lack of interest or capability simply do not understand how the nation works, anymore than they understand how church works. They approach both in much the same fashion.  That language would bleed from one to the other is almost unavoidable.

The difference lies in the fact that church really is an institution of faith, while government is an institution of immense practicality.  As long as we have to convince people to vote one way or the other, we will borrow the tools of religion which is also in the convincing business.   The question is how to motivate people to learn more how their government works.  But then that’s a problem the church has as well.

Lowell adds . . .

Mike Huckabee’s weight is not something we bring up to poke fun. It’s simply an indication that he probably isn’t running in 2012, unless we see a rapid and dramatic weight loss. In addition to the photo John posts above, take a look at the video clip here. That’s a far different Huck than the one we saw jogging with reporters back in 2007.

As for interfaith alliances, it will be interesting to see if Mormons and Evangelicals can openly join forces on matters of joint interest the way Mormons and Catholics are doing that. A lot of progress in that direction was made in California’s Prop 8 election, but the uneasiness remains. That’s a subject for another post, I think. Maybe for a book!

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Political Strategy, Proposition 8, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Mollie Hemingway at GetReligion has done a survey and analysis of MSM coverage on Maine’s Question 1, which passed Tuesday night and overturned the Maine Legislature’s approval of same-sex marriage.  The entire piece is worth reading.  Among other things, Mollie notes the odd way in which the MSM focuses on the religious background of the Yes On 1 campaign’s backers, including the apparently unquestioned assertion that the National Organization for Marriage “is a stalking horse for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”  Here’s one paragraph:

It’s so interesting to me that so many of these stories about the Yes on 1 victory in Maine portray it as a loss for gay activists. But that similar focus isn’t brought to bear on the scrutiny of the groups that are involved in the effort to legalize same-sex marriage. I mean, I’m on a bunch of denominational news list-servs and there were plenty of religious groups fighting this ballot initiative and working to keep same-sex marriage legal in Maine. Why don’t they get the same scrutiny as the Mormons, who actually may have had no discernible role in the Maine campaign? It’s just odd.

It’s my understanding that the LDS Church indeed provided no organizational support to Yes On 1, so it’s all the more curious that its name is being bandied about in the “news” coverage of the election.

John thinks about it a bit:

What fascinated me about the piece was how incredibly convoluted was the argument to arrive at the conclusion that the whole thing was some sort of Mormon plot.  It was a conspiracy theory on the order of the bilderburgrs.

These theories gain traction because the proponents of same sex marriage are so convinced of the rightness of their stance that they believe there must be an “unbelievable” conspiracy for them to be defeated.  The Mormons are singled out as the conspiracy’s source based in part on the tightly held nature of some of their practices (a vacuum, even an innocent one, is always filled) and because it plays on age old prejudices.

What saddens me is that we have recently been treated to two rather elaborate, and popular, movies that paint the Roman Catholic church in similar conspiratorial terms.  Can the rest of Christianity be far behind?  Our philosophical and political opponents seek not merely to defeat us in the ballot box, but to portray us as purposefully evil.  All the more reason for us to unify, not bicker.

Which brings me to what frightens me.  Within the “Tea Party” movement, and the other “true conservative” movements are elements that are looking for such conspiracies.  Like some proponents of same sex marriage, some pro-lifers and some opposition to same-sex marriage is so convinced of the sheer rightness of their stance, that they believe opposition must be born of conspiracy.  But worse, the same age-old prejudices are at play and so, without realizing it, they buy the conspiracies of the left and look within their own party for the conspiracies.  We are then rent asunder and the left prevails because of our disunity.

Which raises the question of whether or not the perceived conspiracy theories of the left are really conspiracy theories at all, or whether they are strategic efforts on the part of the left.  Now there is a conspiracy.  But then reason prevails and tells us that many on the left are sincere, if misguided, in their conspiratorial concerns, but  there are some willing to use that sincerity a bit more cynically.  And in turn, they use our “sincerity” to their advantage as well.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Proposition 8, Same-sex marriage | 7 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

We’ve been a little delayed in getting to the story of the speech Elder Dallin Oaks gave yesterday on religious freedom.  Already the speech has caused a bit of a stir.  As I read the transcript, I find that result fascinating, because I am hard-pressed to find much controversy in it.  Please read the speech; it is not long, or difficult, or complex.

So what is the controversy all about?

Elder Oaks is member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of te Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”). He’s also a lawyer, a former professor of law at the University of Chicago, past President of BYU, and a former member of the Utah Supreme Court.  He is a formidable legal and political thinker and a clear writer.   His speech, given to students at BYU-Idaho (a college owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or “the Church”), has a simple thesis:  There is a “battle” underway over “the meaning of religious freedom under the United States Constitution,” and that battle “is of eternal importance.” Nothing terribly surprising there, coming from a churchman.  The controversy has arisen from Elder Oaks’ comments about what is happening now in the arena of religious freedom in the USA:

Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly. (Emphasis added.)

Then Elder Oaks zeroed in on the problem of  “silencing religious voices in the public square” and in the process, used the Proposition 8 battle as an example.

In other words, he touched the “third rail” of the modern culture war:  gay marriage.   It’s important to note that Edler Oaks did not talk about gay marriage, only about the reaction to the active involvement of the Church and its members in supporting Proposition 8.  In other words, the Oaks speech was about religious freedom, but it somehow earned him designation as one of the”worst people in the world” by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.  (A badge of honor to some, I suppose.)

The Key Points of The Speech

So what did Elder Oaks say to incite such a venomous attack from the wild-swinging Olbermann?  Well, this:

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:

“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”

Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its [Prop 8] coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”

Still looking for a statement worthy of “worst people in the world” designation?  Maybe it was this:

[W]we must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. We are under command to love our neighbor (Luke 10:27), to forgive all men (Doctrine and Covenants 64:10), to do good to them who despitefully use us (Matthew 5:44) and to conduct our teaching in mildness and meekness (Doctrine and Covenants 38:41).

Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled. As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:12). And modern revelation commands us not to revile against revilers (Doctrine and Covenants 19:30).

Well, no, it probably wasn’t that.  Maybe it was this:

[W]e must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders. While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.

We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.

Uh-oh.  Now we are getting somewhere.  Elder Oaks seems to be about to decry the retaliation and intimidation that Prop 8 opponents employed against Mormons – and many others – who supported Prop 8.  I am talking about the publication of maps showing the homes of individuals who donated to the Yes on 8 campaign; boycotts of their businesses; identification of Mormons among the public lists of donors to the Yes campaign; and other admitted efforts at intimidating voters from exercising their Constitutional rights.

This is no joke, by the way.  I remember hearing Fred Karger, the leader of the charmingly named Californians Against Hate, say on the Al Rantel show (KABC radio, Los Angeles) that the reason donors were being identified and harassed was to make sure they thought twice about donating the next time there is an election about same-sex marriage.

These two paragraphs are probably the most controversial of Elder Oaks’ speech:

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

(Emphasis added.)  The bolded language seems to have driven some people up a wall.  Note:  Elder Oaks did not compare the harassment of Mormons and other Proposition 8 supporters to the evils inflicted on African-Americans during the civil rights era.  He instead addressed the effect of those “incidents of violence and intimidation.”

Elder Oaks also said “we must insist on our freedom to preach the “doctrines of our faith,” and that

“as advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious positions or motivations have the right to express their religious views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political participation. . . . even the civil rights of religionists must be exercised legally and wisely. . . . The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.”

Not exactly firebrand stuff, is it?  Finally, and going right to the reason for this blog’s existence, Elder Oaks talked about . . . Article VI of the Constitution!

[F]inally, Latter-day Saints must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement, but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose. But wise religious leaders and members will never advocate religious tests for public office.

Fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their intended purpose. If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists. Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.

We couldn’t have said that better ourselves.

The Upshot

So, Elder Oaks said, in essence, that religious expression is under fire in the United States and that religious people (indeed, all people) ought to be able to speak peaceably in the public square, about public issues, without fear of retaliation for doing so.  That earned him the brickbats of the Left – who thus ironically proved Elder Oaks’ point.

Talk radio host and cultural commentator Dennis Prager often says that the Left believes that because they are inherently and unquestionably right, their tactics can never be legitimately questioned.  The reaction to the Oaks speech certainly seems to support that thesis.  A calm, closely-reasoned speech that urges love and tolerance, but that also urges that religious people should be able respectfully to stand their ground on moral issues, without fear of retaliation, produces a firestorm of criticism.

Good.   That means the debate is going on.  May the best, most principled arguments win.

John adds his thoughts:

I am pleased to see officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stand up for their civil rights in this fashion. In doing so they defend not only their own rights, but the rights of all people of all faiths.  That is something that is very important to remember.  We of the more orthodox Christian faith expressions as well as other non-Christian faiths are indebted to Elder Oaks for this speech.  We need to stand beside out Mormon friends in this – something this blog has insisted upon from the very beginning.

My favorite part of the speech is where Elder Oaks points out that in declaring a “violation of their civil rights” so violently and destructively, proponents of Prop 8 violated those same civil rights of the people the aimed their protests towards.  Americans will always disagree, but we must do so civilly.  Freedom is only free if it applies equally to all.  We learned that the hard way through the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement – it’s in the Declaration of Independence for crying out loud!

Again, kudos to Elder Oaks for standing up in this fashion. This Evangelical Presbyterian stands squarely with him and this speech as should persons of faith of all stripes.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Proposition 8, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 7 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

All weekend long John and I have been reflecting on Friday’s Washington Post piece, ‘The Mormons Are Coming!’  John found it almost funny (he comments below); I found it both fascinating and revealing.  The reporter, Karl Vick, seems pretty clear-eyed about what is happening.  For example, Vick notes that Proposition 8 likely would not have passed in California without the support provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  He then matter-of-factly adds that some gay marriage advocates on the East Coast

are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality. [Emphasis added.]

Well.  That makes the point pretty clearly, doesn’t it?   Playing on the electorate’s fears about a minority religious faith can help you win an election.  It sure worked for Mike Huckabee in Iowa, but no one came right out and said that the way Karl Vick did here.

In a way this is helpful because the tactic is now out of the shadows:

“The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!” warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy “borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion.”

That language “borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion.”  You think?

Apply my favorite test for bigotry, which John and I have often used here:  Insert “Jew” or “Muslim,” “Catholic,” or “gay” in the above-quoted ad language and ask yourself if the advertisers could ever get away with such a tactic.

Nope, they couldn’t, could they?  Vick, to his credit, continues with a clear-eyed view of what is going on:

But the demographics tempt proponents of same-sex marriage: Mormons account for just 2 percent of the U.S. population, and they are scarce outside the West. Nearly eight in 10 Americans personally know or work with a gay person, according to a recent Newsweek survey. Only 48 percent, meanwhile, know a Mormon, according to a Pew Research Center poll.  [Emphasis added.]

So now that we know what’s really happening, we get to the real question:  Is that tactic legitimate?  One political expert quoted in the article doesn’t address that question, but focuses on the tactic’s effectiveness:

“Is it fruitful to use the Mormon bogey?” said Mark Silk, a professor of religion and public life at Trinity College in Connecticut. “My sense is that there aren’t great risks to it. Once a religious institution is going to inject itself into a public fight, which the LDS did in a straight-up way, then I think people are prepared to say, ‘Well, okay, you’re on that side and we’re against you.’”

In other words, once a church takes a position on a public issue, and urges its members to exercise their political rights as voters and citizens to support that position, using that church as a bogey man can be very effective.  No surprise there, and there’s nothing unlawful about such a tactic.

To me, however, the real questions are these: Should we as a society sit still for such behavior?  Isn’t the Kennebeck Journal’s position more consistent with what we’ve come to call “the American Way?”  And if we do not stand up against such bigoted political discourse, isn’t it a very short step to using any candidate’s religion against him or her?

And do we really want to go there as a nation and as a society?

Update by Lowell:

Our reader Carl H. has commented below, and we find his thoughts so useful that we are adding it to the post:

Mollie at GetReligion takes up Vick’s article–and the important issues–here, and considers the elephant in the room that only one side of the debate is willing to discuss:

I also find it fascinating that this entire story aims to support the notion that Americans will be less comfortable with Mormons than gays (if forced, somehow, to choose). We learn all sorts of things about the Mormon church in this story — much of it very fairly written. But we never explore whether it’s true that the more people know about gay activists, the more comfortable they’ll be with them.

Take, for instance, the woman who organized California’s “Meet in the Middle for Equality” march held Saturday in Fresno. Her name is Robin McGehee and she seems by all accounts to be a very nice and capable woman. Here’s an absolutely fawning profile of her in the San Francisco Chronicle from last fall. I sure hope it was written by her mother — it’s just that biased. Anyway, she is one of four partners in the raising of her children — two partnered women and two partnered men. I’m sure that what I’m about to write is considered shocking inside the Washington Post … but I bet quite a few people in America think that such a family arrangement is less than ideal. They might even feel more, dare I say, “comfortable” with the Mormon family next door (not that I, again, think this should matter regarding marriage policy). But we never really see any hard-hitting looks at why society considers families led by two parents of opposite sex to be best for children. It’s almost considered impolitic to discuss this reality.

Indeed.   I have more thoughts about this, and an intriguing Gallup poll, at True North.

John comments:  OK, it is serious, but come on – “The Mormons are Coming”?  It conjures up some images of old, very funny movies.

I am reminded of July 2007 when we accused Jim Geraghty of being an “accomplice to bigotry” due to some argument  he leveled against Romney at the time.   Jim did not take it kindly.  What Jim engaged in then was what this piece does now – some cold political calculation, and we leveled our accusation because sometimes decency demands that some political realities be denounced. There is a point at which winning is not the only thing.

The American way is nothing if not fair.  That means that Lowell’s analysis is right.  If this stands, then any other religion will be the next thing that can be attacked.   But it won’t stop there, then we will attack on other things.  Identity politics are just wrong.

Way back in 2005 I was on a jury in a criminal case.  Jury deliberations came down to race.  It was ugly.  At the time I wrote:

High School Civics class, first day, first words:

Ours is a nation of laws not men.

Those words, that idea, that sentiment has made this nation great. It has, given time, undone the injustices that our society wrought early on.

There was a time, sadly, when the law did not apply equally to all people in our nation. It is our great national shame; fortunately, it is not true any more. More importantly; however, the solution to that former gross injustice lies not in changing what people group gets the benefits of that unequal application – it lies, rather, in assuring EQUAL application.

The pro same-sex marriage crowd feels justified  in their discriminatory rants because they feel discriminated against.  That is an arguable point, but discrimination begetting discrimination delegitimizes any argument they may have – at that point the discussion has shriveled to hatred, pure and simple.  (related reading – Victor Davis Hansen – today)

As proof consider yesterday’s heinous murder of late term abortion provider George Tiller.  This decidedly pro-life blog hereby denounces loudly and condemningly the murder of Tiller or any other abortion provider.  Despite how wrong I think the actions of such doctors are, it does not justify “returning the favor.”  In fact such is an imperative of the same source from which I have come to believe abortion is wrong.

But what I really do not understand in this situation is the press.  Why can they not see the discrimination and denounce it?  I am old enough (as the movie citation above proves) to remember the racial tensions of the late 1960’s and the press coverage of the same.  As I have said before, I have much family in Mississippi and I remember wincing while watching the news thinking that the things they were saying they were saying about my family.  And yet the press cannot seem to muster even one ounce of the outrage at this bigotry that they could raise at Mississippi in that time.  The coverage of the Tiller murder leads with how awful acts of murder and terrorism are against abortion clinics (and they are!) with denial of sympathy for the murder by the vast majority of the pro-life community coming only late in the story.  And yet the coverage of the issue of religious discrimination bears none of the same reporting style.  Why are we not informed of the level of hatred for religious people that runs through the gay community?  Agreed, it is not violence – yet – but with protests and demonstrations and civil disobedienced witnessed both ater the vote last fall and int he wake of last week’s court decision, one has to wonder about the potential.

But this is made all the worse because there really is no outrage involved in any direction – it’s just cold political manipulation.

Or was it?  The Canadian press seems to think religious people in general are just a little nuts. 

Bush, a born-again Christian since age 40, arrives for today’s paid speaking engagement at Metro Toronto Convention Centre with fellow former president Bill Clinton amid a series of stranger-than-fiction disclosures, one of which suggests that apocalyptic fervour may have held sway within the walls of his White House.

Read the rest of the story if you can stomach it, but let’s be serious here.   Could someone as fanatical as they describe Bush to be even survive the election process?  I don’t think so.  Which is part of what makes the idea of “The Mormons are coming” funny.  The Prop 8 campaign was highly skilled and learned political action.  Religious fanatics of the type they seem to invoke here simply could not be that well organized, too much rationality is involved in the execution.

Finally, God help us all, they are talking Iowa ‘12 already.  Personally, I think Iowa is done as a political bellweather.  Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee are not winners that prove much in the way of reliability.  Don’t be surprised to see the GOP, and perhaps the Dems make some moves towards either changing the rules in the early states (IA and NH) or moving towards a national primary day.  Iowa did more than cost Romney the nomination last time – it split the party.  We cannot afford that. 

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Political Strategy, Proposition 8, Religious Bigotry | 8 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

[Note from Lowell: The following is a post from a brand-new blog, True North, where I'll be posting about subjects outside the scope of this blog. This particular post, however, seems like a cross-over to our politics/religion portfolio.]

The crux of the debate, huh? I know, that’s a fairly grandiose title for this post; the gay marriage debate is about many things. For one thing, gays want acceptance, and that basic human desire looms large in the discussion. So does the desire of traditional marriage proponents to uphold the ideal of a family that includes both a father and a mother.

All those important elements aside, I think the crux of the public debate in the coming years will be this question: In the context of marriage, is sexual preference the same as race? In other words, is opposition to gay marriage the same as opposition to interracial marriage?

Understanding the two principal competing answers to that question is crucial to understanding the nature of the national conversation that is under way right now. (more…)

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Proposition 8 | 6 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

A blog post from a normal Evangelical pastor at a normal Evangelical church in Charlotte, South Carolina goes a long way to explain that Newsweek story of last week. (HT: Monday Morning Insight)

You see, I am one of the many Americans who would no longer describe themselves as a professing Christian. I cannot in good faith associate any more with what the label Christian has come to represent in America. Christianity is now a set of political views, a way to distinguish different groups of people (Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus), a movement to impose a certain view of morality on others regardless the condition of their hearts.

[...]

The main goal of Christianity in America is to build a Christian society where Christian values are taught in the schools, Christian morals are enforced in the workplace and Christian laws are followed in the courtrooms. And if Christians can’t force non-Christians to act like Christians, we’ll just build our own separate society. We’ll shop in Christian stores, buy from Christian salesmen and live in Christian neighborhoods. And if we need to we’ll buy guns and defend our Christian values to the death.

I am flawed in my faith and every day I make mistakes that I am ashamed of. But I love Jesus more and more the older I get, and I love the church with all my heart; I just can’t buy into the Christian thing anymore. So I quit. I am resigning from the Christian party, the Christian club, the Christian religion. I am going to devote the rest of my life to loving God with all my heart and loving my neighbor as myself. I am going to spend all of my energy learning more about Jesus so I can follow him as closely as I can. Every day I am going to pick up my cross and follow Jesus; I am going to try be a light in my community and salt in a desperate world. I’m just not going to be a Christian anymore. Are you with me?

Indeed, Evangelicals seems to be experiencing a crisis of politics, but in that they are retrenching in faith. In religious terms many are finding that political action has become an idol and with the corruption of terms so typical in our society, they must reject the label to rediscover the Lord.

From the standpoint of faith, this is a good thing for this generation, but is it a good thing for future generations?  Well politics are important and that is where that question will be answered.  If we remain a nation where we are free to practice our religion, to pass it on to our children and to evangelize freely, then yes, it is a good thing.  Nothing makes for good converts like good adherents to a faith.  If we give up politics as an idol, and place God on His proper throne, our faith should grow personally and socially – and faster than it has been.

But, if we remove ourselves from politics altogether, then we stand to lose a nation where we are free to practice and evangelize.   We won’t die, but we will be driven underground.  As Evangelicals go through this retrenching they need to remember the idea is not to divorce politics, but to properly engage them – to put them in proper perspective so that our God is also in proper perspective.

This means that for many, particularly those in professional ministry, politics will become a personal matter.   They are called to spread the gospel, not the rally the vote.  But as leaders of the flocks, they are also called to make room for others to exercise their calling, which for some is indeed rallying the vote.

There is much at stake.  The current administration, through fiscal and taxation policy, threatens the funding base of institutions such as churches.  Despite Proposition 8, the threat to the structural foundation of our society, the nuclear family, remains quite strong, and growing.  The threats to human life in some scientific research  have been unleashed, and our government now pays for such deaths overseas.  We have much to do.

I applaud learning how to do it smarter.  I do not applaud abandoning the field of play.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Proposition 8, Understanding Religion | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post