Lowell adds some provocative (he hopes) thoughts:  Some months ago I wrote here about Thomas Griffith, who had been general counsel to BYU and is now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is the second-most important federal appellate court after the Supreme Court.  Judge Griffith happens to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and had written a long article about the Church’s beliefs about Jesus Christ.   I asked readers to imagine that they were U.S. Senators an conservative Evangelical Christians who were considering Judge Griffith’s nomination, and then I asked these questions: 

1.  Would you you take the [judge's] religious views . . . into account in deciding whether or not to support his nomination?  Presumably no, because the views are purely theological, and to take Griffith’s religion into account is flatly prohibited under Article VI to the Constitution.

2.  Would your answer to Question 1 change if Griffith were before you as a nominee not to the D.C. Circuit, but as a sitting D.C. Circuit judge now proposed for elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court?

3.  If your answer to Questions 1 or 2 is “no,” do you see any difference between excluding Griffith’s Mormonism from your consideration of him as a judicial nominee, on one hand, and excluding Romney’s religion from your consideration of him as a presidential candidate, on the other?

I’m just wondering if this is a matter of psychology.  To some, it may just seem to be “too much” to put a Mormon on the Supreme Court, even though he or she might be acceptable on the Court of Appeals.  In the same manner, it seems tolerable to some that a Mormon be a U.S. Senator, but certainly not President of the United States. 

Similary, is it acceptable to some (Al Mohler comes to mind) for a Mormon to be Vice President, but not President? The notion is illogical, of course, because the veep is “only a heartbeat away” from being President.  But Mohler is concered that the election of a Mormon president might “mainstream” Mormonism.  Presumably the election of a Mormon U.S. Senator, or the confirmation of a Mormon federal appeals court judge (but maybe not a Supreme Court justice) would not worry the Rev. Mohler quite so much.

Food for thought, no?  Is the country ready for a Mormon veep, but not a Mormon president?

Please use the comments to discuss, we have turned off comment moderation for the day.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Since long before Mitt Romney was officially even a candidate, we were treated to articles “pondering” whether Evangelicals could possibly vote for a Mormon. We have been treated to dozens of articles, most of them wrong in some aspect or another, about what Mormons believe and what Evangelicals think about that. We have seen poll after poll after poll about whether Evangelicals were suspicious of some generic unnamed Mormon.

I have not done the stats, but it is very obvious that there was a narrative established for Mitt Romney concerning his faith. While there has been attention paid to Obama’s race and Clinton’s gender, race has never been established as the narrative of the Obama campaign and Clinton has chosen to use her gender as a positive part of her narrative. The MSM has largely respected the narratives that these candidates chose for their campaigns and have followed the plan. Obama’s Muslim background notwithstanding, the amount of “ink” devoted to that topic pales in comparison to that devoted to Romney’s faith, and it has often been spun to appear as a positive appeal to “diversity.”

How would this Republican primary season have been had the MSM and the punditry chosen to respect the narrative Romney wished to establish for his campaign? Suppose every time Romney said “Americans want a president of faith” it was allowed to stand as a positive statement, rather than challenged with a citation from some poll somewhere – What would have happened then?

Yes there were a few evangelical leaders that said negative things, but largely they were silent. Suppose the press had allowed the Romney-defined narrative to stand in the face of the silence – might not Evangelicals have reacted very differently?

Which Brings Me To . . .

When it is all said and done this primary season, what do you think the over-arching narrative for the primary season is going to be, at least as written by the MSM? Well, let me suggest this – regardless of outcome on the Democratic side, they will have embraced, finally, the totality of diversity. While on the Republican side it will be that they are stuck in the old times, bigoted, short-sighted and close-minded.

This narrative will harm John McCain in the general. This narrative will harm Republican chances in the legislature and in statehouses and governor’s mansions throughout the nation. Republicans have to get control of this narrative and they have to do so now. This is one of the many reasons Mike Huckabee needs to get out and get out now.

John McCain is beginning to look at running against Barack Obama – that is smart given yesterday’s results. But he also need to begin to look at continuing to run against Mitt Romney, in the sense that this narrative is going to haunt him.

There is much at stake for Evangelicals. We are making progress, and we are doing it in those state legislatures and we can still do it federally if we control the House and Senate. We will not be able to do so unless we stand up now and take action against this narrative. Mitt Romney is out. The time for silence is over. We cannot afford to give the MSM and punditry the ammunition they need through our silence.

New media has, finally, given us the tools we need to control our own narrative. It is high time we put them to good use.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Huck poses two problems for Romney. First, his vote share of the conservative base of the party — particularly in western Michigan — could come out of Romney’s hide. The conservative Catholics, evangelicals and Dutch Reformed members — some of whom first came to the party in ’88 when Robertson scored a second-place finish in the state — have somebody who speaks their language about faith and the sanctity of life. And then they have a Mormon. Do the math.

A little later today he links to Rich Lowry on South Carolina, wondering if religion is the reason Romney is considering taking a “bye” there.

The Examiner looks at the religion role and how it affects Huckabee.

What marks all of this analysis and comment is a direct and simple acceptance of religious bias, perhaps even bigotry, and certainly an acceptance of identity politics. I keep coming back to what George Will said a few weeks ago:

If Huckabee succeeds in derailing Romney’s campaign by raising a religious test for presidential eligibility, that will be clarifying: In one particular, America was more enlightened a century ago.

I think Will is very correct in that analysis, and while there will never be precise metrics to check the supposition, the emerging conventional wisdom says it is true. And this presents the Republican party and Republicans in general with competitive goals. It is the classic clash of necessary leadership versus bowing to the will of the electorate in order to gain the power necessary to exercise leadership to begin with.

On the one hand the party and each of us as Republicans should be decrying this fact from the highest point in town. It is a step backwards and it is not healthy for the nation in general. On the other hand doing so runs the risk of alienating a number of voters, voters needed to win elections. Are we forced to take a step backwards to win?

Each voter and each pundit must make the decision for themselves as to how to respond in this circumstance. Personally, I think it is way too early to push the panic button. Things are way, way too much in the air. As we have seen time and time again the press has a path that things should take in mind and when things do not go that way, they become confused and try to argue for an analysis that is clearly not true. The only legitimate analysis possible in this primary is “we do not know what is going on or what is going to happen.

That said, it is wrong for the punditry to simply accept what may in fact be a very real fact on the ground without condemnation. I caught all sorts of heat for quite a long time for calling Jim Geragthy an “accomplice to bigotry” when he did some analysis that accepted this kind of bias and bigotry as simple fact. The accomplice charge may have been a bit much, but we can ill afford to simply concede to it either. Frankly, Martin and Lowry both need to condemn what they are seeing while reporting on it. This blog does has and does.

Of course, the MSM is attempting to argue the Romney is “done.” One thing I am absolutely certain about – Romney cannot drop out of this race before Mike Huckabee, under any circumstances. Such would be like Martin Luther King sitting down in the face of the hoses on the march. Mitt Romney may (big emphasis on may) lose, and religious bias may have a role in it, but as a leader first, he cannot give into that role. It should be remembered that his presence in the race hurts Huckabee as much as the other way around.

Other candidates do not look good to me for a variety of reasons, but Huckabee is repulsive because of his appeals to bias and bigotry. That cannot be allowed to prevail. Romney should play to win and not merely beat Huckabee, but beat Huckabee he must at the bare minimum.

The press and the pundits should join him….

Additional:  “Is it a reporter’s job to condemn or support what they are reporting” is a likely response to my comments above.  Generally, the answer is no, but in this instance, I think things are somewhat different.  As I opened the piece, there are not metrics here to show bias and bigotry objectively.  There are bigoted institutions, but there is no institutional bigotry to point to.  Therefore, any reporting, other than anecdotal, or incident specific is either the reporters personal perception or presumption of bigotry.  The presumption should not be held and the perception would be an argument and as such it is completely acceptable to decry it in that context.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Romney, Russert and Religion

Today’s Meet The Press Interview is now part of the public record, and predictably, Tim Russert dove into religion first. (Here’s the video clip of that portion of the interview, and here’s the transcript.)

One issue that got more attention than I think it has previously in the campaign was the former policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”) that denied the Church’s lay priesthood to African-American men. The exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: You, you raise the issue of color of skin. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown vs. Board of Education, desegregated all our public schools. In 1964 civil rights laws giving full equality to black Americans. And yet it wasn’t till 1978 that the Mormon church decided to allow blacks to participate fully. Here was the headlines in the papers in June of ’78. “Mormon Church Dissolves Black Bias. Citing new revelation from God, the president of the Mormon Church decreed for the first time black males could fully participate in church rites.” You were 31 years old, and your church was excluding blacks from full participation. Didn’t you think, “What am I doing part of an organization that is viewed by many as a racist organization?”

Romney responded:

GOV. ROMNEY: I’m very proud of my faith, and it’s the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a, a faith–well, it’s true and I love my faith. And I’m not going to distance myself in any way from my faith. But you can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at, at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mm was a tireless crusader for civil rights. You may recall that my dad walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 in San Francisco in part because Barry Goldwater, in his speech, gave my dad the impression that he was someone who was going to be weak on civil rights. So my dad’s reputation, my mom’s and my own has always been one of reaching out to people and not discriminating based upon race or anything else. And so those are my fundamental core beliefs, and I was anxious to see a change in, in my church.

I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and, and literally wept. Even at this day it’s emotional, and so it’s very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the, the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons.

MR. RUSSERT: But it was wrong for your faith to exclude it for as long as it did.

GOV. ROMNEY: I’ve told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there–there’s, there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God, and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.

If you want to try judging Romney’s sincerity on the racism issue, watch the video clip. (Shorter version here.) I won’t detail my own experience; suffice it to say that like many other adult members of the Church on June 1, 1978, when the change was announced, I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news. It was like a thunderbolt, and I felt as though a great weight had been lifted from my shoulders. Thanks to reader Jeff, here’s another account of the events leading up to that day, written by the man who is now President of the Church.

There is nothing new in the Meet the Press interview, except Russert’s follow-up on whether Romney believes the Church’s former policy was wrong. For reasons I’ll discuss below, it is very difficult for Romney to answer that question directly. This is a problem Romney cannot solve. The only question is whether his refusal to get into that level of doctrinal detail will hurt him politically. I doubt that it will. But let’s take a look at the politico-religious issue.

Byron York rightly points out today that candidates have long been asked about their past association with institutions that discriminate based on race. He sums up Romney’s problem:

. . . Romney is faced with the simple question: Was the church policy before 1978 wrong? This morning, he wouldn’t say, and it might be difficult for him, as a former church leader, to get out in front of the LDS leadership on that. And he certainly can’t cite McConkie’s advice to forget everything that was said before 1978. Given all that, it’s an issue that’s likely to pop up over and over again.

Romney’s position is painfully familiar to many, if not most Mormons who were adult members of the Church prior to the announcement on June 1, 1978. Most of us say essentially this:

We don’t know why the policy existed and we don’t know why it took so long to change, but we were terribly uncomfortable with the policy while it was in place and we are delighted and relieved that it is now in the past. Because we don’t know the answers to those two “why” questions, and because we believe the Church is guided by revelation, we can’t in good conscience say the policy was wrong. All we can say is we are grateful it is over. That’s not very satisfying spot to be in, but we accept it and move forward as faithful members of the Church.

At least that’s how I feel about the matter. I don’t know that voters who care about the Church’s former policy will have the patience to accept that response. I suspect there are not enough of those voters to make a difference, especially in light of the Romney family history on the issue. Mitt Romney himself has all but said that whatever the Church’s position used to be on the issue, his family’s behavior was in support of equal rights.

York is right that the issue will pop up over and over. Along the way, reporters will probably refer to this interview with Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles. If you scroll down a ways you will find some interesting and, I think, candid comments about the Church’s former race-based policy.

By the way, on the Meet the Press website there are outtakes, called “Take Two,” from today’s interview, including excerpts here from George Romney’s interview on the show in 1964. The elder Romney was also asked about Mormonism, but the very benign nature of those long-ago questions is fascinating. (Hint: They’re about the gnarly issue of Sabbath observance.)

If you want to get to know Mitt Romney better, watch the Take Two portion. It is much more relaxed and provides some insight into the man.

Christians?

K-Lo notes that today’s MTP session will fan the flames around the “Christian” question:

[A]s much as it pains me, I can’t help but think that there are some evangelicals who heard Romney talk about “Christians” who were seething that he won’t say “I am not a Christian.” I remember the first time it was explained to me at a Concerned Women for America conference that I am not a Christian because I am Catholic. At the time I wondered why we — my pro-life, conservative CWA friends and I — couldn’t just strengthen our political alliance on issues we agreed on and go our own ways Sunday morning (or whenever). I hope pray Iowa conservatives get how important it is to have that alliance — to unite where we agree on the policy and political issues that are at the core of what the next president will face in office — and not splinter it for a guy who wants to be a “Christian leader” who has a whole host of the policy and political issues wrong.

We could not have said it better.

Update: John Hinderaker of Power Line is tired of all this and comments in a post entitled “Enough Already.”

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

There is information missing from this pile.  Not information concerning the basic whodunnit question, but repudiations of these heinous actions.  McCain (other reporting of same) – Thompson – Guiliani have all been heard from repudiating these calls.  

What is missing is similar repudiations from some of the more likely suspects, like any Democratic candidate, Mike Huckabee, the other also-rans, and leading Evangelical political organizations.

Some further basic reporting…

• Wizbang Politics
• Jonathan Martin on understanding push polls 
• WaPo's The Trail blog
• More testimony from call recipients
• Talking to the polling company
• Other summaries

The investigation begins…

• Romney requests
• NH Attorney General responds positively (he has to, it is a matter of law) 

Analysis and repudiation…

• David Brody repudiates
• Marc Ambinder speculates/ analyzes
• As does Hugh Hewitt

Romney responds…

• To Jonathan Martin
• To Larry Kudlow  Romney hammers McCain-Feingold hard in both places, but stops short of trying to pin the push polls on McCain.  Kudlow later in the day on Hewitt, keeps pushing the McCain angle.  McCain has sideled uncomfortable up to The Question on several occasions, but I do not think he is this dumb.

On the radio…

Hugh Hewitt covered the story extensively with:

• Yours truly
• Charles Krauthammer. 

We'll keep you posted if more develops!

[tags]push polling, Iowa, New Hampshire, Mitt Romney, anti-Mormon, bigotry[/tags] 

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

If you are still concerned, consider:

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

[tags]Mormons, belief, difference, Evangelicals, Mitt Romney[/tags]

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

First we have the LATimes/Bloomberg poll with it’s now widely quoted 37% “will not vote for” number.  Then there is the RunMittRun.com South Carolina poll that sets the “will not vote” number at 33%.  That’s about it, and that is somewhat woefully inadequate to conclude that Romney’s CJCLDS affiliation is a significant issue.

Both Powerline and Kathryn Jean Lopez on National Review Online have analyzed the LATimes/Bloomberg poll and determined the data is insignificant to conclude that Romney has a problem.  Lowell and I have seen the questions from the RMR poll and they are very similar.

I’m not sure I have much of a point to make here beyond those I have already made, I just thought I ought to anticipate the objection and pull together the resources I have to defend myself.

[tags]polling. Mormon, Romney, Powerline, NRO, issues, evidence[/tags]

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The Democratic Left Wants to Radically Redefine Marriage While Portraying Republicans as Bigoted.

John: The Evangelical View

As evidence of his contention Hewitt lays out the various judicial rulings and legislative actions regarding same sex marriage of recent years. Here is some fresh evidence since the book was pubished. More importantly, Hewitt lays out how those actions are in direct defiance of the will of the VAST majority of the American people, citing virtually every poll every done on the issue.

In my opinion this may replace abortion as the hot button issue for politically involved evangelicals in the next few election cycles. Marriage is one of the places where government and religion unavoidably intersect, as marriage is established in both places.

As we know, people come to their individual religiosity by any number of paths, but I am certain that one of the most common ones for adult evangelicals is for the benefit of their family – a family that they clearly think is one man and one woman.

The second reason this will be such a hot button issue is what Hewitt points out – this is governance in direct opposition, even defiance to the will of the people. That’s enough to rile up any red-blooded American, evangelical or otherwise. (Anybody remember the Stamp Act?)

I will be very interested in the comments of my co-blogger Lowell on this issue. As most are aware, historically, though not presently as I understand it, Mormons ran into much opposition in America because of their polygamist practices. Further, one of the best arguments against government sanction of same sex marriage, or having the nation become completely libertarian with regards to marriage, is that either will lead down the slippery-slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality, and other forms of deviant marriage. In other words, in the past, Mormons attempted to radically redefine marriage in America. The result was vigorous persecution, often beyond reasonable, civil, or legal boundaries.

Lowell: The Mormon Perspective

Same-sex marriage is one issue in which there is simply no distance between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons”) and Evangelicals– or, for that matter, among Mormons, Evangelicals, orthodox Catholics, observant Jews, and any other Judeo-Christian religion that takes the notion of revealed religion seriously. The Mormon Church states its official position on its web site:

The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms marriage between a man and a woman, and opposes same-gender unions and any other sexual relations outside of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of His children. “The union of husband and wife assures perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely-ordained setting for the nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living, offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society.”

Further detail is available here.

This statement is no mere platitude. The Church takes this issue very seriously. In 2000, when Proposition 22 was on the ballot in California with a definition of “marriage” as the union between one man and one woman, the Church was extraordinarily active in fund-rasing and organization. Together with the Catholic Bishops, the Orthodox Rabbis, and evangelical groups, the Mormons went door to door, planted lawn signs, and helped raise millions of dollars to secure Prop 22′s passage by a wide margin. Several weeks ago the Church not only announced its support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but directed that a letter from the First Presidency of the Church be read in every U.S. congregation during Sunday services. The letter noted that a vote on the Amendment was set for June 6, 2006, in the U.S. Senate and urged members of the Church “to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.” (In my California congregation the contact information for our state’s two senators was handed out with the written Sunday meeting program.)

It’s clear that the Mormons and evangelicals were thinking the same way on this matter, according to the Salt Lake City’s Deseret News:

News of the letter was received with a “Great!” at the conservative, Colorado-based Focus on the Family. “The timing is wonderful,” says Peter Brandt, senior director of public policy. Focus on the Family has sent out its own letter to 135,000 U.S. pastors, offering them pre-printed postcards in support of the amendment. “We’ve distributed a million or so postcards,” Brandt says. The group has also launched phone campaigns in 14 states where Senate members voted against the amendment the last time. Utah is not on the list.

As noted above, Mitt Romney’s official positions on same-sex marriage are well-known and are fully consistent with his church’s position. It was his own Massachusetts Supreme Court that discovered, after hundreds of years, a right to gay marriage in the state constitution. (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health was the case.) Romney has railed against the Goodridge decision ever since the court handed it down.

John mentions polygamy. All I can safely say about that without risking a foray into my own opinions is to state the Church’s official position:

Some early leaders and members of the Church entered into plural marriages during the latter half of the nineteenth century. After receiving a revelation, Church President Wilford Woodruff declared the practice should be discontinued in 1890. That position has been reaffirmed by every president of the Church since. Members of the Church who enter into plural marriage today face Church disciplinary action, including excommunication.

It is true, as John notes, that much of the persecution of the Church during one period of its history arose from the practice of “plural marriage,” as it was called. There were many other excuses given for persecution as well. It is important to understand that the Mormons of that era practiced polygamy because of their sincere belief that God had commanded them do do so. They quit when (1) the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the government’s authority to regulate polygamy, even though it was the expression of a religious belief, and (2) their prophet told them that the practice must now stop. (I don’t know a single practicing Mormon who wishes polygamy would return, by the way; the general feeling is to wonder how on earth those people managed to live that way.) So to the average mainstream Mormon, there’s no connection between polygamy and same-sex marriage; the former is prohibited, and the latter is considered a true abomination, directly contrary to God’s plan of happiness for His children.

Marriage, in short, is another area in which Mormons and evangelicals can and do make common cause.

Chime in on this subject, if you wish, on the comment forum.

[tags]elections, issues, marriage, same-sex marriage, polygamy, evangelicals[/tags]

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The Democratic Left and Its Senators Have Declared War on the Judiciary

John: An Evangelical Perspective

Of all of the points in the book, this one is to me the most obvious. The most devastating point is made when Hugh reprints these tables. It is clear that the Democrats are losing political influence, but attempting to hold control through judicial action.

This is a clear attempt to override the checks and balances among branches of government and the political ebb and flow that the nation was designed to accommodate. This issues is also, to my mind, of almost singular importance. The “War on Religion” discussed as the previous issue is largely being fought in the judiciary. From abortion “rights” to “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the greatest restrictions of the religious voice in public life have come not through the ballot box or the legislature, but from the courts.

I’m not sure there is an “evangelical perspective”on this particular issue – I think there is simply an American one. If the courts escape the bonds of their constitutionally restricted purview, that is to say interpretation, not creation, of law, then we will rapidly fall into autocracy. We would no longer be the United States of America.

We find ourselves in that position now, at least when it comes to certain issues. The vast majority of American, somewhere around 90%, identify themselves in believers of in God. Yes, there is an immense spectrum of such belief, but most believe in a Higher Being/Creator. And yet, decision after decision after decision comes down from the courts of our land seeking to deny this simple statistical fact from public discourse and consideration.

From the filibusters of a huge number of Bush’s appellate court nominees to the lines of questioning aimed at other nominess, it is clear that the Democratic left seeks to control the nation through the courts. They seek to short-circuit the democratic process and re-write the constitution without a vote fo the people. This simply cannot be tolerated.

Lowell: A Mormon Perspective

I don’t believe there is a particularly Mormon view of this issue. A politically conservative Mormon will see the matter the same way any conservative evangelical or Catholic or Methodist or Jew would see it, and would agree fully with John’s post.

There are several reasons for this. As John notes, liberals tend to see the judiciary as a means of overriding the Constitutional system of checks and balances, and so they want desperately to control the courts. This is probably because liberals know they cannot achieve their policy goals (such as abortion on demand and same-sex marriage) at the ballot box, so they see the courts as mini-legislatures where they can do so.

Abortion on demand is the great liberal success story in this regard. How do Mormons see that issue? The LDS Church opposes abortion, and so Roe v. Wade is outrageous to  Mormons who are paying attention to what the Supreme Court did in that case.

Turning to gay rights, the Church filed a “friend of the court” brief in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the case in which the Supreme Court came within one vote of deciding, as a matter of Constitutional law, that the Boy Scouts must allow homosexual scoutmasters to serve. (I blogged extensively about Scouting and the Supreme Court here.) The Mormon Church also recently announced its support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which provides, in pertinent part:

“Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Romney’s already on record as opposing gay marriage, and vigorously criticizes his own state’s Supreme Court for discovering a right to gay marriage in the Massachusetts Constitution. That case was called Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Romney’s opposition to the Goodridge decision, which he repeatedly calls “judicial legislation,” is quite well-known. So there appears to be little doubt where he stands on the role of the judiciary.

All of these cases exemplify judical arrogation of power. Opinions among Mormons will differ, but there is nothing in Mitt Romney’s religion that would separate him from Hugh Hewitt’s proposition that there is a “liberal war on the judiciary.” Indeed, I am confident that most committed Mormons would readily agree with Hugh that the judiciary is too often deciding matters best left to the legislative branch. And most conservative evangelicals should be delighted with Romney’s position on the issue.
[tags]Hugh Hewitt, Democratic left, courts, judicial legislation, Boy Scouts, gay rights, gay marriage, filibuster, abortion, Pledge of Allegiance[/tags]

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Lopez: As secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan banned wine at diplomatic receptions. Would we ever stand for such a thing again? Should Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney get out in the open early on that he wouldn’t do such a thing as president?

Bennett: I don’t think we ever would stand for such a thing again; and even in the White House we will never see again the days of “Lemonade Lucy Hayes,” wife of Rutherford. When she presided at White House social functions, it was said “The water flowed like champagne.”

As for Mitt, I assume since he has spent so much time in Boston, he probably thinks beer is the third tap on a sink. But seriously, he needs to simply say what he believes; he’s done pretty well so far.

The question is frankly silly.  Mitt’s not exactly a blank slate on this “issue,” having been the governor of a populous state for almost four years.  It should be pretty easy to determine whether he has been giving only ”dry” official functions.  Something tells me that if he had, we’d certainly know about that. 

Even so, Ms. Lopez ask a useful question because it reflects the understandable ignorance even well-educated and broadly experienced people have about Mormon faith and culture.  It’s also the kind of thing that becomes part of a whisper campaign during a Republican primary.  So here’s my answer: 

Faithful Mormons do not drink alcohol, tea or coffee, use tobaco, or abuse drugs.  But they do not impose those practices on others.  (Example:  When Prohibition was repealed, Utahns famously voted for repeal along with the rest of the country– even though the leadership of the LDS Church urged them to vote the other way.)

There are no prescribed practices in this area.  When this Mormon lawyer takes a client out to dinner, the client can order whatever he wants– even wine.  I simply drink water or a soft drink.  I’ve never experienced a moment of discomfort in that setting, although a restaurant dinner guest of mine once asked me if I minded his drinking in my presence.  (I smilingly told him no.)

Now, it’s different when we entertain in our home.  There, my family simply doesn’t serve alcohol, and we don’t allow smoking in our home.  When our children are married, alcohol won’t be served.  I believe almost all Mormons adopt the same practices.  (A Democrat Mormon congressman once told me he kept beer in his refrigerator for guests in his home, but I think that’s pretty rare.)

So– in light of the above, because the White House is the president’s home, would President Romney forbid its use in the presidential mansion?  I can’t imagine that.  Mitt’s been around the world too long, and is too warm a personality, to be so, well, Puritanical.  (I struggled for that metaphor and hope I have offended no one.)  After all, the White House is not the president’s private residence, it really belongs to the people.  Mitt won’t drink with his guests, but he won’t stop them from doing so.

Well, I’m glad we got that weighty question off the table!

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.