Article VI Blog

Tonight at 8:00 EDT we’ll see the Bloomberg/Washington Post Republican Presidential Debate.  This will be a “pure MSM” event, with the estimable Charlie Rose as moderator.  Washington Post political correspondent Karen Tumulty and Bloomberg TV White House correspondent Julianna Goldman will also be asking the candidates questions.

Can anyone doubt that this MSM panel will ask  The Question in some form, of either Rick Perry or Mitt Romney?  In anticipation of that likelihood, the Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn has written The Cult of Anti-Mormonism in today’s edition.  He begins with advice that we could have written:

Here’s some advice for Republican candidates appearing at Tuesday’s presidential debate at Dartmouth College. When you are asked, as you will be asked, what you make of the Christian pastor who called the Mormon faith a “cult,” there’s only one appropriate answer.

It comes from the last sentence of Article VI of the Constitution, and it reads as follows: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

McGurn goes on to point out the Pew survey showing that Romney’s faith is more of a problem for liberals than conservatives.

[O]verall, more Democrats than Republicans are hostile to a Mormon candidacy (31% to 23%). More interesting still is Pew’s finding that when it comes to this particular animus, “liberal Democrats stand out, with 41% saying they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate.”

One has to wonder if this tendency might help explain the MSM’s fascination with the Mormon issue.

So how will Charlie Rose and his colleagues approach the religion issue tonight?  Will they simply try to start a bonfire and create headlines?  Or will they try to enlighten the audience?  McGurn concludes by raising Proposition 8 in this context, a subject that we haven’t addressed much lately on this blog:

[I]t’s good to see Republican feet now being held to the fire on an issue the Founders resolved in 1787. Even more encouraging would be a press willing to give attention to very real concern among politically active Mormons: whether a Romney nomination would mean LDS members staying on the sidelines out of fear of the kind of attacks on their property and their livelihoods that their co-religionists experienced with California’s Proposition 8 and its aftermath.

Grab some popcorn and watch with us.

Okay, John’s Turn

It is going to be an interesting show, and most interesting from my perspective will be how much Kool-Aid Charlie Rose et. al. will have consumed.   The Mormon talk continues at a feverish pitch throughout media old and new.  I was going to pass on, as usual, all the links, but at this point they are too grossly numerous, too repetitive, and too beside the point.  They are one prong of what is now emerging as a clearly coordinated political attack on Romney as the front-runner.

Consider: The weekend opened with Jeffress/religion affair, about the only topic hot enough to consume media for an entire weekend.  It was followed on Monday by Perry hitting Romney, once again, on flip-flop.  And this morning a story breaks about some of Romney’s Massachusetts advisers being consulted on the development of Obamacare.  That is three hard punches at Romney’s three biggest perceived weaknesses in, essentially, the three days leading up to the debate.  And so, I repeat the question: Will Charlie Rose and company take this all in and turn the debate into “hammer Romney time” or will they attempt to conduct an actual debate between candidates?  Will they allow their debate agenda to be set by what is clearly a media campaign being waged by one of the candidates, or by the “not Romney” forces generally?

Let me give you just one example.  Romney’s religion – Romney’s religion – Romney’s religion – we have heard and are hearing it until my ears are bleeding.  But will anyone talk about the fact that Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain all claim to have been “called by” or “told by” God to seek office? All this concern about Mormonism and whether electing a Mormon will put Salt Lake City in charge of the nation, and yet I hear no claim of divine imprimatur by the Mormon’s campaign – only the Protestants are making such claims.  Will our moderators question these three candidates on their claims?  Will the moderators wonder how God could call three different people to one job?  Will they examine in exquisite detail the differences between Cain’s National Baptist church, Perry’s Methodist church and Bachmann’s Lutheran cum Evangelical churches?  Will they ask which one of those denominations is the “true” Christian denomination?  Will they examine the Christological differences among these denominations?

If the moderators are smart they will not ask any of those questions, nor will they ask about Romney’s faith; but sadly I think buzz trumps smart and so we are going to be treated to what will doubtlessly be a sordid debate.  I agree with McGurn, all the candidates should answer religion questions with, essentially, “What’s that got to do with what we are here to talk about?”  But I am not sure they will.  Some, of course, did on the Sunday shows already and here’s hoping they will stick to their guns.  But if one of them tries to prevaricate, dodge, or otherwise let the religion point stand without wholly buying into it, you can bet that one is somewhere in the background of the three-pronged attack that we are seeing emerge.

Which brings me to one related issue.   I got an email from Tony Perkins yesterday.  Tony is the guy that runs the Family Research Council, which is the organization behind the VVS.  Interestingly, that widely broadcast email is supposed to be replicated on the FRCAction website, but the link is non-functional.  Here’s the pertinent portion of the email:

Bringing together 3,400 conservative activists, leaders, and speakers with reporters from almost every news outlet is not without some risk. And although thousands of social conservatives came to Washington to talk about restoring America’s moral foundation, it didn’t fit the media’s storyline. Having been a reporter for a short while I know what journalists are looking for. Controversy. And it didn’t take long for them to find it when the Texas pastor who introduced Gov. Perry was asked by reporters if Mormonism is a cult. When he said yes — even though it was in a sidebar conversation with the media — his answer became a dominant story from VVS.

Since the firestorm erupted on Friday, I’ve been on most of the news networks responding to the questions of the press. This is what I’ve said: America is a country where religious freedom is constitutionally protected and where we respect the right for people to practice their faith publicly and peacefully in a free nation. President George Washington replied to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island: “[H]appily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

We clearly recognize the fact that Mormon theology includes doctrines that are distinct from Evangelical theology and Catholic theology. At the same time, the goal of the values voter movement is not to build a ” National Church .” Our goal is to build a national coalition based on the shared values of respecting human life, strengthening natural marriage, defending religious liberty, promoting personal and fiscal responsibility, and maintaining our national security. When we successfully work together with those who share our values, we are preserving and strengthening our religious liberty, so that we can freely share the truth of the gospel with everyone.

What’s missing?  Perkins does not accept the responsibility for Jeffress’ presence on the dais.  Nor does he repudiate Jeffress’ claims, in that particular context, for the distractions they are.  He acts as if he was caught as unawares as the Perry campaign claims, yet the Perry campaign claims that it was Perkins’ organization that made the call to put Jeffress in that spot.  As we have amply demonstrated, Jeffress was a well-known quantity.

Point being, people are running away from Jeffress as fast as they know how.  This prong of the attack has clearly backfired.  Will Charlies Rose and friends be smart enough to run away too?

As to Lowell’s popcorn invitation, I think we are going to need seat belts.

&nbsp

John Mark here:

As a former Anglican I was going to propose a fifth (where every two or three Anglicans gather, there is a fifth), but in the interest of dialog and fraternity, I will accept a large milkshake for tonight’s debate.

If asked, I would reply: “With millions of Americans unemployed, with the unborn having no Constitutional protections, and with the American family under assault with the Obama economy, I think we have better things to discuss than imposing an unconstitutional religious test on a GOP candidate.”

If they pressed Perry should say, “Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist. Dwight Eisenhower was not even baptized when he took office. I would attend Carter’s church and like Ike’s success.”

If Romney is pressed, he should roll his eyes and say: “Ask the unemployed in Detroit if they care about where I go to church or about jobs . . . if anything other than jobs comes up it will be the Lions and Tigers. Next question, please.”

With Romney leading in Iowa according to some polls where he is putting in little effort and with the Christie endorsement, isn’t it obvious that most conservatives are willing to vote for Romney?

Posted in News Media Bias, Prejudice, Proposition 8, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Same-sex marriage | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

No, I’m not talking about the book of scripture from which the nickname for my church is derived. I’m talking about the Broadway musical that won so many Tony awards last Sunday night.

I’ve admitted here to some ambivalence about “The Book of Mormon.” On balance the musical seems to be harmless nonsense that, I hope, signals a recognition of my faith as sufficiently established and familiar in the USA to mock. In other words, the musical might be seen as a back-handed compliment to Mormonism.

And yet….

Part of me is uneasy about the notion that is is acceptable — even praiseworthy — to mock a religious minority that has a history of persecution. As much as “The Book of Mormon” may be a sign of mainstreaming Mormon culture, if not its beliefs, it may also foreshadow the acceptance of intellectual persecution and ridicule of a distinctive religious tradition. We Mormons are a little sensitive about that.

But it has taken an Orthodox Christian professor at Biola University, John Mark Reynolds, to make the point for us. In a must-read op-ed at The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog, Professor Reynolds (a favorite of this blog) writes of Amos and Andy and The Book of Mormon:

If we assume the play a brilliant satire with PR unfortunate enough to release only the cruel and facile bits, then we are still left with two unfortunate truths about this play. First, the writers are cowards. They inflict pain and mockery on those already despised while going soft on the tired assumptions of their rich and powerful patrons. Second, in a pluralistic society they have targeted a group already misunderstood and discriminated against.

I am no Mormon, but I have witnessed bigotry and ignorance directed against this American community. The LDS Church is placed in the difficult position of seeing their most sacred beliefs mocked in a nation that murdered their prophet in a shameful lynching. Broadway has given aid and comfort to the mob of ignorant folk who know nothing of modern Mormonism outside of their prejudices.

No wonder Mormon politicians like Jon Huntsman, bob and weave when asked by bigots if they are part of the LDS church. Few of us have the Mitt Romney courage to stand by our people when the cost is high. For his steadfastness, Romney was linked to the play in a Newsweek parody cover that left only his profile, but a profile in religious courage.

Please read the whole thing.

In the end, I, and other Mormons like me, find the musical disturbing and somewhat worrisome. In the aftermath of California’s Proposition 8 we felt the sting of public attacks on individual members of our church who acted on a matter of conscience. Yes, that makes us nervous about the extent to which we might have to steel ourselves for further such attacks in the future. We do not like the idea that ridiculing and marginalizing our most sacred and fundamental beliefs is not only acceptable, but hilarious. What person of faith would?

Two days ago Susan Brooks Thislethwaite, a Professor at the Chicago Theological Seminary, writes of “Mocking Mormons.” Professor Thislethwaite takes a slightly more benign view of “The Book of Mormon,” and tells Mormons “welcome to the American mainstream. Now, in order to join this fraternity, you need to go through the hazing.”

Other reviewers disagree, of course, that attacking faith or Mormonism is the goal of this musical. Mark Kennedy writes for Associated Press that the “Book of Mormon” is “a pro-religion show at heart.” Why? Because it has an uplifting moral at the end. “Far from being nihilistic,” Kennedy writes, “the moral seems to endorse any belief system — no matter how crazy it sounds — if it helps do good. Amen to that. Consider us converted.” That’s about as watered-down a version of religion as you can get; but after all, Kennedy writes for the Associated Press, not Beliefnet, so what does he know? (That was a joke, Mark.)

….

But that doesn’t mean that the “Book of Mormon” isn’t funny, especially if you like silly, sophomoric humor of the “South Park” variety…. What is offensive to some can be funny to others, but often precisely because it is offensive. Humor isn’t always kind; humor is routinely used to put minorities in their place. In the case of “The Book of Mormon,” the offensiveness seems to be the point, not the ‘doing good.’

Can Mormons ‘take a joke’? Like women in the workplace having to suffer through sexist jokes, I see this musical as a sign both that Mormons are moving into the mainstream of religion and culture, and that there is resistance to that.

I hope Thislethwaite is right, I really do. But John Mark Reynolds convinces me that we ought to watch the progress of this phenomenon closely, and with more than a little concern.

Posted in News Media Bias, Proposition 8, Religious Bigotry | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The Left’s First Mormon Strike of 2012?

…Could very well be this Salon piece.

If you’re a resident of one of nine seemingly randomly selected mid-sized (mostly) non-coastal American cities, you’re the lucky audience for a new series of commercials advertising… Mormons. They are not quite explicitly ads for the Church of Latter-day Saints, they are just ads for Mormons, themselves. They are about how Mormons are regular people who enjoy things like surfing and riding motorcycles.

[...]

Mormons, obviously, want to prove that they are regular people, just like us, and some of them are even cool, young, attractive people who ride skateboards.

But… are Mormons just trying to convince Americans that Mormons are “normal,” so that in 2012 they’ll consider voting for Mormon King Mitt Romney? (These ads are running in four or five potential swing states, after all.)

They do go on to report that the CJCLDS refutes the claim but as they say, the bell has rung.  There was reaction in The Washington Independent, a Pittsburgh TV station and the Mormon Times.  EFM passed it on, and seemed to get in some hot water – please people do not be so sensitive – EFM are the good guys.

I think we are beginning to see the Mormon meme developing as the left will likely deploy it.  Straight religious attack (“the founding whoppers of Mormonism”) is not going to play this time – it’s been delegitimized on both sides of the aisle.  However, with the passage of Prop 8 and the ensuing “blame the Mormons” cries that arose from the left, they have come to think of the CJCLDS as some sort of conspiratorial organization and the hidden hand of right wing forces.

We have seen the “Mormon Mafia” pieces in the business pubs recently.  Dan Brown’s completely fictitious novels (The DaVinci Code) have produced images of religious institutions as conspiratorial organizations bent on promulgating deceit and cover ups.   Watch this space, “Mormons as bilderbergers” may be the meme of choice for 2012.

And while we are on the subject, this letter to the SLTrib concerning moves in talk radio in the local market is not at all helpful:

At a time when stellar and faithful Mormon Mitt Romney needs every ear, now is not the time to cancel his strong supporter, Sean Hannity.

If you are Mormon, do not vote for Romney because he is Mormon, any more than an Evangelical should vote against him because he is a Mormon.  And if you do support him for the right reasons, saying that in a public forum is just not helpful.

Prop 8 Ruling Continues to Roil…

An emailer poses a hypothetical:

…imagine this scenario: Judge Vaughn Walker is the proud father of seven children, grandfather of eight, happily married for 42 years and a former LDS stake president. He hears and carefully evaluates the same evidence presented in the trial and writes a 12 page opinion validating the will of the people. Do you think the media would dismiss his LDS and family views as inconsequential to the result, much as they have discounted Judge Vaughn’s homosexuality? I am convinced, given the well known impartiality of the media, that they would ignore his background.

The emailer is, of course, being sarcastic.  And of course, it need not be a Mormon – if it were little ‘ol Presbyterian me, the point would hold just as well.  If the “shoe were on the other foot,” as it were, the media would have been all over the ruling like white on rice.  And the media is bad enough, but I am concerned legally about this.  Any right leaning judge with as much personally at stake in a case as Walker had in this one would have recused him (or her) self.  Walker’s ruling is, as best as I can tell, two things unprecedented in American national history:

• a blatant attack on religion as a moral force in our nation by the power of government, and
• an attempt to rule by straightforward fiat on a level easily comparable to our days as a colony.

As reaction, I thought this piece by William McGurn was on point.

The effect this will have on the forthcoming elections is difficult to measure.  Dan Balz seems to think the focus will remain on the economy.  Looks like Glenn Beck does too.  (So much for Mormon conspiracies!)

Here’s my analysis – As an issue, same sex marriage is likely to stay on the back-burner.  However, the effect of this ruling will be highly significant in an indirect fashion.  There is enormous resentment building in this nation against the currently empowered left as they are moving too far, too fast, and doing so by force without the overwhelming consent of the governed.  Walker’s ruling is indeed the most strident, direct and effrontive of those moves.  People flat out will not stand for it.

The next couple of election cycles are likely to transcend issues, they are going to be about tone, attitudes and the very definition of democracy.  Successful candidates are going to figure that out and ride that wave.  People that get too focused on issues are gong to miss the boat electorally.  The First Thoughts post I linked to above on Beck is trying to hammer Beck because they see abortion and marriage as the preeminent issues.  On the other end of the spectrum is our old pal Fred Karger who has finally attracted some big time political press.

If Karger makes it on stage in those debates, he’ll join a line of single-issue candidates that have had some degree of success over the years.

There will be no room for “single issue candidates” this time around.  There is too much at stake.  The very heart of what it is the be the United States of America is in play.

Which brings me to…

…2012 News

I thought this MSNBC break down of the field was interesting:

You can look at the emerging GOP 2012 field this way: the establishment (Romney, Barbour), the new faces (Pawlenty, Daniels, Thune), the evangelicals (Huckabee and Santorum), and the cable TV personas (Palin and Gingrich).

There is a lot of sorting to do before this gets serious, but that is a taxonomy that might prove useful.  Some of those folks are going to the Iowa State fair, and some are not.  There is more strategy buried in who is and who is not than you might think.  Clearly Haley Barbour is making forays into Iowa, but is he dropping the forty pounds?  Romney and Palin are the clear leaders, but I still do not think Palin is going to run.

There are some unsmart things happening.  Politico wonders in “offbeat” candidates are going to hurt Republicans this time around.  I do think the very high levels of resentment out there are going to result in some unusual choices.  The party is going to have to tread very lightly as it works its way through this minefield of resentment.  Not all the candidates Politico is attempting to cast as “offbeat” are that bad, and they are preferable to the Democrat mainstream, but it is going to be interesting.

This is not offbeat, it’s stupid:

An influential group of religious conservatives said Monday it would sit out the fall gubernatorial election as promised after candidates it favored lost in last week’s Republican primary.

And thus the fallacies of “one issue” are revealed.  They don’t get what they want and so they don’t get anything at all.  In politics there are lots of battles, and as we have seen here, when we only fight a few, we lose the bigger picture.

And in closing, let’s consider what our illustrious president said Friday evening concerning the ground zero mosque:

This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.

Let’s see how much he reminds his supporters of that should his 2012 opponent be a Mormon.

Posted in Proposition 8, Reading List, Religious Freedom | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

…time and employment have not permitted Lowell or I to review the decision in detail.  To that caveat I will also add that I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, so any review I might do of the ruling will be limited.  However, that said my eye was drawn by a quick document search for the word “religion” to the following.  On the question:

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST

The judge found:

77.  Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

That is extraordinary.  There is nothing neutral in a legal ruling that religion does harm.  It is particularly extraordinary when across the continent in New York City officials seem to be bending over backwards to distinguish between religion and the idiots within the religion that caused more than “harm,” they caused the death of thousands of Americans, and their business associates from around the world.

It also ignores the fundamental belief of virtually all persons of faith that all people are guilty of sin.  That being true there is virtually no step from this ruling and having to ban religion altogether as discriminatory towards everyone because the religion holds that everyone has sinned and is therefore harmed..

It is also interesting to note that the finding implies that calling a homosexual relationship sinful is a “private moral view” but that saying it is not sinful is an amoral statement.  The fact of the matter is that the question is inherently moral.  It is equally demonstrable that forcing me to view a homosexual commitment ceremony causes me harm for I certainly hold my religious identity as dear as any homosexual holds their sexual identity.

The ruling, as so many have said is unsurprising.  It also appears to me untrained eye to be the worst case of judicial abuse of power in our nation’s history.  Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff said:

…Judge Walker’s decision is the fruit of a lengthy process through which an elite within the legal profession has worked tirelessly in an effort to blur, hopelessly, the distinction between the law and personal preferences of that elite. If the decision stands, its main impact will be a diminution, probably past the tipping point, of public confidence in the law and the courts.

That’s a pretty good summation. But I fear the ramifications will be even broader in the long run.  This decision as written appears, again to my untrained eye, to severely erode the legitimate position of religion in our greater public discourse.  If we no longer trust the law and courts and religion is delegitimized as a source of moral authority in the nation – only chaos can ensue.  Such has brought down empires.

Are we to go the way of the ancient Roman Empire?

Posted in Proposition 8 | 13 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

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!

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.

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