. . . you end up with lots to talk about next blogging day.

Now, About The Evangelical “Left Turn”. . .

The Examiner was writing about it as was the WSJ. But that same WSJ interviews Rick Warren in the wake of last weekend’s Forum:

Sitting on a small stone patio outside the church’s “green room,” I question him further — has he heard that the Democratic Party is changing its abortion platform? “Window dressing,” he replies. “Too little, too late.” But Rev. Jim Wallis, the self-described progressive evangelical, has been saying that the change is a big victory. “Jim Wallis is a spokesman for the Democratic Party,” Mr. Warren responds dismissively. “His book reads like the party platform.”

If you’ve read any of the hundreds of articles about Mr. Warren that have appeared over the past 10 years, perhaps you think I’ve got the wrong guy. After all, the leader of the fourth-largest church in the U.S. is supposed to be part of a “new breed” of evangelicals, according to the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and dozens of other publications. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof paid him what Mr. Kristof might consider the ultimate compliment earlier this year, referring to Mr. Warren as an “evangelical liberals can love.”

[…]

But there is a misunderstanding by the media, says Mr. Warren. “A lot of people hear [about a broader agenda] and they think, ‘Oh, evangelicals are giving up on believing that life begins at conception,’” he explains. “They’re not giving up on that at all. Not at all.”

[…]

So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson? “It’s a matter of tone,” says an amused Mr. Warren, who seems unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagree.

A recent Pew study reveals that most Americans (barely “most”) think churches should avoid politics. And Reuters reports about Evangelicals:

The latest poll by the Pew Research Center suggests 68 percent of registered voters among this group support McCain while only around a quarter back Obama.

There is even religious trouble at the Democratic convention.

Perhaps the country has not shifted nearly so much as the liberal press would like to say it has.

But The Question Remains . . .

Writing at Renew America, Marie Jon advocates for a McCain/Romney ticket and The Question plays a critical role in her analysis.

Evangelical Christians have been aware of the dirge sung by those who, for whatever reason, wish to exclude Romney from consideration for the VP post on the Republican ticket. Very well-crafted words are being used to try to induce Evangelicals to withhold their votes from this very qualified man because of his (Mormon) faith.

[…]

Apparently some Evangelical pastors won’t cease their whisperings to the press. We get it. They are promoting Huckabee over Romney for the vice-presidency. It matters not how their opinions could dissuade voters from McCain.

If President Bush was practically tarred and feathered by progressive Democrats for his Christian beliefs, how might an outspoken and often comical character like Michael Huckabee be perceived if he became the VP nominee? Only naivete would facilitate one believing that the media would allow Huckabee’s verbal blunders to go unnoticed. They embraced him once, but if he were to play a pivotal role as McCain’s running mate, the gloves would come off.

And interestingly, a recent FOXNews poll on the election asked, as its final question:

As far as you know, do you think Mormons are Christians or not?

Now that is just abysmal. A question to get a metric on the attitudes of voters towards a Mormon candidate would be understandable, but that is an inherently theological question that has no place in a poll of this sort - none whatsoever. From a different source, I would assume this to be a push polling question, but in this instance it is just flat out ignorant.

But while we are on the topic of such inter-religious squabbling, we should remember that there is genuine anti-religious bias out there that sharpens their knives especially for Mormons. The future of our nation with regards to the role or religion in public life can look very bleak.

Lowell:  It is indeed disturbing that so many think a mindless cretin like Bill Maher is cute or funny.  Every single statement he makes about Mormons on that clip is either flat-out wrong or wildly distorted.  All are malicious.  What if he were talking about Jews and described The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as unquestioned fact?  Would he be so cute then?

And Now, Going Very Deep . . .

John Mark Reynolds puts last week’s Saddleback Forum into some perspective.

John McCain won the Saddleback event by combining his real world experience with his agreement with Evangelicals and other traditional Christians on the paramount moral issue of the day. In that way, if only in that way, he is following closely in the tradition of Lincoln’s campaign for the White House. Senator Obama deserves credit for trying to do so. The difficulty is that Obama rejects protecting the unborn. On that issue, Evangelicals of this day will be as single minded as northern Evangelicals were on the moral issue of slavery.

The good news is that all of us can relax. Both Obama and McCain are mainstream American politicians. Our constitution is not in peril and neither is the historic relationship between church and state. Lincoln’s Union was not theocratic from any sane perspective despite the involvement of religious leaders like Beecher. A nation governed by Rick Warren’s two friends, Senator Obama or McCain, will not be either.

Reynolds argues that things are in many aspects the same now as they were then, and indeed, in some aspects they are, but things have also changed considerably. Daniel Henninger in the WSJ on Friday:

There was a time before the multitude of world views fell from the sky — let’s say every presidential election from 1789 to 1964 — when one could assume that all the candidates shared a basic set of moral precepts, now called “values.” They were Judeo-Christian precepts. Old Testament-New Testament. It was pretty simple. Some past presidents may have been closet agnostics, but when they were growing up, someone “wise” told them what the common rules were. Most people in public life felt no need to challenge this world view.

That’s gone.

[…]

Too bad if you don’t like those answers. This is what we get in a morally contested world. It becomes necessary to ask presidential candidates everything because we don’t know who they are and we can’t trust them. For better or worse, what the candidate thinks about taxes or Iraq isn’t enough. What, Senator, is your worst failing?

At Saddleback Barack Obama learned this: If you want to be president in the U.S., nothing on God’s green earth is ever above your pay grade.

Henninger’s argument is that with the absence of an assumed shared ethic in the nation things like the Forum are necessary. The argument makes sense, and yet I find it troubling. Too often the reasonable discussion of the Forum breaks down into factionalism. We are a divided nation on political issues, but when we start to be divided in such basic areas, I worry that our system cannot overcome the divisions.

At First Things Joseph Bottum writes a long and excellent essay on the fall of Mainline Protestanism in America and the political ramifications thereof. He makes the case for the concern that I express above. I could spend weeks detailing through this essay with you, but will leave it to you to read the whole thing. I would even recommend reading it several times. Here is a telling sample:

Just as religion is damaged when the churches see themselves as political movements, so politics is damaged when political platforms act as though they were religions. And perhaps more than merely damaged. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the killing fields of Cambodia, the cultural revolution in China: We had terrible experiences in the twentieth century when political and economic theories succeeded in posing themselves as religions.

We’re not on the edge of something that frightening today. But the death of Protestant America really has weakened both Christianity and public life in the ­United States—for when the Mainline died, it took with it to the grave the vocabulary in which both criticism and support of the nation could be effective.

There is one observation that he makes that bears particular discussion:

Perhaps some joining of Catholics and evangelicals, in morals and manners, could achieve the social unity in theological difference that characterized the old Mainline. But the vast intellectual resources of Catholicism still sound a little odd in the American ear, just as the enormous reservoir of evangelical faith has been unable, thus far, to provide a widely accepted moral rhetoric.

I think the path may be a bit different, but he is onto something here. With the death of Mainline Protestantism there has indeed been a great deal of intellectual underpinning lost, and the Catholic Church remains the best resource from which to regain that vital necessity, but Evangelicalism seems to be mired in endless bickering and minutiae. Frankly much of Evangelicalism would be as opposed to Catholics as they are to Mormons. Oh, how many times I have been treated to diatribes against the “papists” and “Mary worshippers.”

If there is an analog to what mainline Protestanism used to be in our society today it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Growing, not dying - the essential ethos, if not the theological correctness, of the traditional Mainlines is very alive and well in the CJCLDS. Like Evangelicalism, the CJCLDS lacks the intellectual history, depth and resources to see to completion the task Bottum lays out, but unlike Evangelicals, Mormons seems quite content to work with Roman Catholics. Mormons currently lack the numbers to render such a coalition truly effective, but that is something that is changing on a daily basis.

Needless to say, I have my concerns about the eternal destination of my Mormon friends - I’ll trust my God to work that one out. I do, however, think that on a societal level Mormons may represent the best hope our nation has for restoring the consenual ethos that formed, and has sustained, this nation.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

My, My . . .

Bishop Charles Chaput points out that for Catholics, at least, issues matter above party loyalty. To which I respond, “Indeed! But party loyalty creates effectiveness on the issue - abortion. Is there really another option?”

A leading Godblog (someone that rejects profoundly the name “evangelical”) accuses some pastors backing Obama of “going low.” I have to agree.

The Examiner floats a rumor that Huckabee followers may go third party. Not at all surprising to me.

Speaking of no surprises, McCain remains largely mum on his faith journey.

Kathleen Parker opines that Warren was the BIG winner over the weekend and that church/state separation was the big loser. I think there is a bit of a straw man in that later conclusion, it is more something to be concerned about than something that actually happened.

Lowell interjects: I did like this bit from Parker’s piece:

The Warren Q&A wasn’t an inquisition exactly, but viewers would be justified in squirming.

What is the right answer, after all? What happens to the one who gets evil wrong? What’s a proper relationship with Jesus? What’s next? Interrogations by rabbis, priests and imams? What candidate dare decline on the basis of mere principle?

Both Obama and McCain gave “good” answers, but that’s not the point. They shouldn’t have been asked. Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that “Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” or that McCain feels that he is “saved and forgiven”?

What does that mean, anyway? What does it prove? Nothing except that these men are willing to say whatever they must — and what most Americans personally feel is no one’s business — to win the highest office.

I think she’s just a bit over the top here, but her questions are provocative. We’re at a point in history when the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of probing a candidate’s religious conscience. The country’s not in a good place on that issue.

Finally . . .

A former Minnesota Governor says something really, really smart.

And, Lowell adds: We are in a little discussion with Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics. Mark seems to be describing, or explaining, the Evangelical claim that “Mormons lie.” (This is a view John and I think is held only by the most extreme anti-Mormon Evangelicals.) Mark opines:

The justification for voting against Mormons is not that they belong to some non-evangelical faith but that their faith misrepresents itself [as Christian], and so is not to be trusted. Electing a Mormon would somehow sanction this way of doing business, and therefore send the wrong message to Americans. Under the circumstances, it is plain how the flip-flop charge [against Romney] reinforces the prejudice. What’s wrong with Romney the politician is what’s wrong with his faith: Both sail under false pretenses.

I find Mark’s argument woefully ambiguous in at least one respect, and commented on his blog:

Mark, I find your point intriguing although I remain unconvinced. Maybe I simply hope you are wrong. For now, I’d be interested in knowing what you think. Are you also saying that both Romney and his faith “sail under false pretenses,” and that a creedal Christian is therefore justified in not voting for him for that reason alone? Or are you saying only that some evangelicals think so?

I look forward to Mark’s response. Meanwhile, I’ll comment on his overall point: It’s based on an enormous straw man. When anti-Mormon Evangelicals say Mormons are not Christian, they really mean Mormons are not orthodox or historical or creed-accepting Christians. We Mormons heartily agree with that. We devoutly believe in Jesus Christ, the historical figure, as the Savior of mankind, but we reject the creeds. Therefore no Mormon who has even a basic understanding of his own faith would pretend to be a creedal Christian. We will insist that we are followers of Jesus Christ. We are very straightforward about that. Now, if some find that approach to Christianity deceptive, it is they who have some explaining to do, not Mormons.

John adds a late post-script: I have been reviewing the number of times we have addressed the “Mormons lie” meme in its many variants lately, and reflecting on the many conversations I have had with people that advance it. It really comes at two levels. The first level is from the rabid silly ones - hardcore bigots that will grab at any straw to justify their bigotry.

Then there are those that are simply uncomfortable, generally because of a lack of knowledge and experience, with Mormonism, and are looking for a reason to stay safely in their shell.

We have a problem on this blog that I do not think we have adequately addressed. There is little to do with the first level group but label them bigots and send them away. The second level group is a different story. Though they indeed practice a soft form of bigotry, to apply the “bigot” label to them simply makes the outside world more hostile, not less, and tends to drive them deeper into their shell instead of invite them out.

Food for thought.
Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Was It A Big Deal Or Not?

On Faith asked about the Saddleback thing and the responses are quite slow in coming in. I think that is reflective of the fact that the Civic Forum was really important in a relatively small circle.

However, it says something VERY important about Evangelical politics. USAToday points out that megachurches like Saddleback are not all that unique in their levels of political involvement. But my personal reflections today on all this center on this Blake Dvorak post at RCP’s VP Watch blog:

The two big notions floating around on the chattering circuit is that Joe Biden is up (true) and Mitt Romney is down. What’s spurred the Romney news is the pressure coming from Evangelical groups and Mike Huckabee. Both insist Romney’s religion has nothing to do with their opposition and that their concerns center around Romney’s flip-flopping on matters like abortion and same-sex marriage.

OK, let’s put aside the denials and take matters at face valu: If Romney is down it’s because of the Huckabee led pressure, and then it is because of religion, and that is where this past weekend’s forum gets important. (I am also not going to take on the main point that Dvorak makes later in his post, but I think he is wrong.)

As we analyzed yesterday, the real winner over the weekend was Rick Warren. That also means, to some extent, that the commonly touted voices that stand up for Evangelicals, Land, Dobson, Perkins, Huckabee - LOST. Warren, the weekend’s somewhat strained comments to Jack Tapper notwithstanding, has been far more circumspect on Romney and religion than the other bunch. Romney himself told me a couple of years ago that he had had several excellent meetings with Rick Warren.

The forum, by its very nature, location and host, served to marginalize the hotheads - Something we have been calling for on this blog for a very long time. John McCain’s extraordinary success in that forum paves the way for a Romney nod as Veep. The mainstream of Evangelicals - those that might be a little wary of, but hardly prejudiced against, Mormonism - now stand in front of Evangelical politics. McCain is free of having to worry about how the silly rabid bunch will react.

Here’s hoping he will act accordingly.

This; However, Will Not Help . . .

Out of Ogden/Layton Utah:

Frustrated by the treatment former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney received from the “religious right” in his run for U.S. president, a Layton historian has written a book documenting the anti-Mormon bias amidst the national GOP party.

The 244-page, softcover book, “A Different God? Mitt Romney, The Religious Right and the Mormon Question” by Craig L. Foster, lists for $24.95 and is now available online at Amazon.com and Barnes&Noble.com and is expected to reach book stores by Aug. 21.

Not being a Mormon myself, I cannot begin to tell Mormons how to feel about all that has happened, nor can I possibly deny that religious prejudice played a huge role in how the primaries went down. But having said that I think there are a couple of big mistakes that could be made in the wake of this cycle.

One would be for Mormons to play victim. Losing, even under these circumstances, is different than being victimized. Playing victim plays the same game the silly rabid bunch have played. I believe Mormons should, as African Americans should have, elevate the game. Don’t meet these people on their level.

Secondly, Mormons should not seek acknowledgment of religious claims out of this. The religious differences may never be resolved, in fact probably should not be. Large branches of orthodox Christianity will always view Mormons as worshiping a “different” God. But that is a religious question. The great American tradition is that even if that is true, it should not make a difference when seeking electoral office.

The religious and political issues must be addressed in separate manners and venues.

Lowell: Anyone can write a book, especially a softcover book with no apparent publisher. Craig Foster’s book, I suspect, will not be very widely read. Still, it is a mistake. What good does it do to point out obvious bias, especially when there are plenty of people who think that very bias is not only justified, but Godly? For every book on the Mormon side of that issue, there will be three in response on the anti-Mormon side, attacking Foster’s points with relish and self-righteous zeal.

It is foreign to Latter-day Saint culture to whine or complain, or to enshrine persecution. We do not talk much of the evil that was done to us in the mid-19th century, except in historical discussions. We are taught to pray for the enemies of our church. John is right: We should rise above the bigotry.
Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

About That Forum At Saddleback . . .

Needless to say, it is big religion and politics news. The transcripts are here. We have only had time to skim them and had no time to watch. Frankly, I did not think it is that important, and so far, reaction and the transcript skim is proving me right.

I did not get that excited in advance because I suspected it would not be that relevant. My suspicions were confirmed when the morning of, Jack Tapper blogged an interview with Rick Warren that included this:

I noted that Mitt Romney — thought to be on McCain’s short list for VP — did not get a lot of evangelical votes during the GOP primaries specifically because of his Mormon faith.

“What did you think of that when that was playing out?” I asked.

“Well, I think there’s a fundamental difference because evangelicalism and Mormonism,” Warren said. “There’s no doubt about it. And there’s some things that Mormons hold to that are not ‘historic Christianity’ that all Lutherans, all Methodists, all Baptists, all Pentecostals, all Catholics, Protestants [hold true].

“For instance, all Christians believe in the Trinity. Mormons deny the Trinity. So that’s a fundamental difference,” Warren said. “All Christians believe in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Mormons believe in additional books that historic orthodox Christians reject. There may have been a misunderstanding on that. But I don’t even think that’s the whole issue. I think that there are other issues involved in terms of who has had experience, who has had leadership and who understands my problems.”

Warren gave a theology answer which to my mind disqualifies him as a serious commentator or interviewer when it comes to elections and a POTUS. Please note he stops short of saying religion is a disqualifier for office - he just goes to theology instead of politics in answer to an essentially political question. Warren’s phrase “who understands my problems” is, however key.

[Lowell:  I found Warren’s response almost incomprehensible.]

In the aftermath, the Godblogsphere is just eating up the Obama-McCain joint appearance at Warren’s church.  Sadly, Evangelicals have come to view themselves in a kingmaker role and this was an opportunity to act like it. Many commentators have said the real winner in this thing is Warren, and that is astute political analysis - with this event he has clearly established himself as the new leader for Evangelicals. Beyond that this was a void.

Evangelicals are chewing it up because of tone, since they find political competition off-putting (which also means they love indecisiveness - how else could so many churches finds themselves in such messes?) and because Warren asked a lot of questions that “speak their language.” Personally, I found it a bit demeaning, as if I as an Evangelical am not intelligent enough to lift myself to the level of standard political debate.

Frankly, the whole thing was dangerously close to an identity test. It smacked of trying to get the candidates to sound like they fit the evangelical mold, at least enough to connect to Evangelical voters.

How about Evangelicals connecting to the nation?

The Economist thinks both candidates have a “religion problem,” which probably does explain why they agreed to this thing with Warren to begin with. There is a delicate line for a candidate between serving the voters, leading, and pandering. Frankly, given Evangelical behavior of late, I think more leading is called for.

Here’s The Evidence . . .

The weekend was full of stories about Romney’s evangelical problems, even for Veep:

• The NYtimes
• The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune

But my favorite story on all this was from Jonathon Martin:

Mike Huckabee told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that he’s expecting a top-tier speaking role at next month’s GOP convention.

“It would be beyond imagination if I didn’t get a prime speaking spot,” Huckabee told the paper in an interview published last Sunday. “I came in second. I would think that I’ve earned the right to be there.”

First of all, Huck needs to check the vote count again - Romney came in second, Huck just kept running after he had lost.

But all this is evidence of Evangelicals getting just a bit too big for their britches. Whether it is the guys leading the Evangelical PACs trying to sound “judicious” in their evaluations of Romney as a veep candidate, or Huckabee sounding like a petulant child that has not gotten the invitation he thinks he deserves, it is all beginning to smack of panic in the face of defeat.

The big picture is obvious. The traditional organs and leaders of the “religious right” are not just on the ropes- they have lost. In fact they are so out of it, they cannot hear the bell ringing and are swinging wildly, thinking the fight is still on. Which goes back to the political analysis of the Warren forum - he really is the clear winner and this bunch are the clear losers. Warren still has a lot to learn and needs to put some meat on the bones, but he has played this reasonably smart.

That is to say, he has stayed out of politics in general, being a friend to presidents, but being essentially apolitical - the Billy Graham route. I am still waiting for real, effective, genuine Evangelical political leadership, but in its absence I will take this approach over what we have been seeing any day of the week.

So, Which Is It?

The Washington Post thinks Evangelicals will move towards Obama. The Washington Times reports on moves to the contrary. I think it is proof the press does not get this stuff.

Going Deep . . .

Richard John Neuhaus goes into some extraordinarily deep theology on Christians, history and eschatology and in the middle of it says this:

Obviously, we’re into deep theological waters here. What Christians can say about the particulars of God’s purposes in history leaves us stuttering and tongue-tied. They can attend closely to what is revealed; they can try to read “the signs of the times;” they can study, discuss, debate, speculate, and then pray for the grace to act in the courage of their uncertainties. But at the end of the day, they say with Paul, “Now we see in a mirror darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

I cannot help but reflect that it is precisely that uncertainty that Neuhaus discusses that makes it impossible for Christians to apply religious tests to civil elective office. We just do not know the mind of God that well.
Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »

Hamlet - Act 3, Scene 2, 222-230

Yeeahh, Uh-huh, Not Buying it

RCP’s Blake Dvorak, commenting on Jonathan Martin’s look at the Huckabee lead anti-Romney effort, carries the YouTube of Huck on FOXNews yesterday. Huck repeats over and over and over and over again that it is not about religion, that it is about Romney’s “swings of position” - something he says rather wryly and with emphasis, as if to say “See I didn’t say ‘flip-flop’ so it’s not code,” attemptinging to avoid the Vanderbilt trap.  Now we are back to Clintonesque!

He says religion should not be an issue and says it is not an issue for the majority of “values voters,” and expands that to include Catholics and other non-evangelical groups, but he stops short of repudiating those that are clearly bigoted. You know, the ones that commented on his campaign web site. He tries to establish plausible deniability, but his plausibility on this one wore out a while ago.

His claims become especially void when the blog of the “Religion in Public Life School” at Trinity College in Hartford Connecticut says this - emphasis added:

Huck tells Fox that the Mittster would be a bad choice for VP because of his flip-flopping, but not because he’s a Mormon: “I think there are better choices for Sen. McCain that have the approval of value voters.” It’s time to connect the flip-flop charge to the anti-Mormon thing.

Many values voters–i.e. evangelicals– distrust Mormons. Why? Because, in evangelical eyes, Mormons claim to be something they’re not; to wit, Christians. People who change positions are not trustworthy because they claim to be something they didn’t use to be. The suspicion is they’re sailing under false pretenses, pretending to be something they aren’t. So what I’d say is that by so vigorously embracing all the values values voters embrace–rather than maintaining a certain distance–Romney actually reinforced anti-Mormon sentiment among evangelicals. (As in: “He says he’s just like us? What else would you expect from a Mormon?”) Just the opposite of what he intended. And at this point irremediable.

That is the connect we have heard before, most notably from the only right-leaning bigoted published piece of the campaign - Joel Belz. The logic here is so faulty as to defy reasonable argument. It is simply words wrapped around a presumption that a person is a liar. “Rationalization” is the psychological term that applies here.

As I have said before, I think these people are mostly self-deceptive with this stuff - they sure don’t seem to be fooling anybody else.  It becomes particularly apparent when you see something like Hugh Hewitt’s very cogent and well argued post in favor of a Romney Veep nod from yesterday.  Hewitt analyzes the politics quietly, carefully, and thorughly, and by a simple count on issues comes tot he conclusion that Romney is the best selection.  That means he has to compare to other possibilities along the way and discard them, but it is becasue there is someone better.  When someone’s comments are purely negative (”I don’t so much care who it is, just so it’s not Romney”), one has to wonder.  But when when they are devoid of reason (where in allof this have we seen actual citations of Romney’s “swings of position? - Yeah, we saw a few in the primary but they were convoluted, tortured sorts of things) and only have catch phrases, wonder leaves the room and is replaced by certainty.

But the press is much to blame here as well. They are giving these idiots (Huck now included) air.  They are loving it. Most of the major outlet poliblogs have picked this up, like WaPo and CNN. Their meme seems to be “Mitt v Huck - again.” Well, how about “Huck shoots at Mitt?” I mean Huck is on no one’s short list, including McCain’s. There is no competition here, which is what makes it even more insidious.

The last time I heard TV lend its “credibility” to such rationalization it was not in a news program, it was Jerry Springer on one of his uncountable, and unwatchable, “confront the Klan” episodes. Those guys in white had all sorts of “reasons” why they weren’t racists - they were just good Americans trying to follow the American way.

Yeah well, Huck - sorry - I am not buying this from you any more than I bought that from them.

But There Is Sweet Reason . . .

And, as is often the case here - it is from John Mark Reynolds.

This is not the only lesson Evangelicals have learned from their long history in American politics. They also benefit from the American tradition of no formal state church combined with an informal civil religion that broadly reflects the views of most citizens. Like most Americans, they reject a theocracy, but also the ideological extremism of total secularism. They like singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic and seeing manger scenes on courthouse steps. They don’t want an officially Christian nation, but don’t want a government afraid to admit that the nation is mostly made up of Christians.

Evangelicals want McCain and Obama to ignore the ideologues on both sides. They want to know if either candidate will go too far in either direction. Evangelicals want a candidate who can acknowledge our overwhelmingly religious heritage and nature as a people while allowing as much freedom for the tiny secular minority as possible. They want a candidate whose campaign, and advisors, reflect their values.

Now why is it when JMR says something like I find it far more plausible that when Huck attempts to? Could it be because JMR as consistently and prudently spoken out against the bigoted extreme while Huckabee has ridden their votes to a FOXNews job? Could it be that JMR never made a crack about Mormons believing Jesus and Satan are brothers?

JMR’s piece is entitled:

This Coming Election: What do Evangelicals Want? (Part I)

Well, I know one thing they DON’T want. Numbskulls like Mike Huckabee speaking for them.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

(This post appears with a special thanks to commenter CarlH.)

It’s Official - Huckabee Stands In Front of An Anti-Romney Push

Yet another niche market media outlet carries that silly story about silly people in the midwest. Clearly there is a bit of a media push going on, but to date it has not gotten much traction - a few local papers and internet outlets like the one linked here. And I would place a bet that that lack of traction is why Huckabee himself stepped into the fray yesterday. He managed to score a little national media attention, CBS - their blog only, but said nothing we haven’t heard a thousand times before.

“I think a lot of people, not just social conservatives, but a lot of the Republicans I know are not necessarily comfortable with Romney,” Huckabee told CBSNews.com. “But it has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with inconsistencies in positions he’s held, and that’s it.”

OK, here’s the deal. Huckabee has always had a personal distaste for Romney, and I have always been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I really thought it was a personal thing, not a religious one. Yes, he was unashamed to play the religion card in Iowa, but I thought that was opportunistic, not a sign of genuine religious bigotry.

I am beginning to wonder; however. For one thing, he keeps yapping like this. If it was a purely personal beef it is REALLY intense on Huck’s part and he and Romney have not had enough interaction to develop a dislike that intense. Being this ugly usually requires a betrayal or other actual personal interaction. Besides, Huckabee has nothing at stake in a competition with Romney anymore.

Further, there is Huckabee’s invocation of “flip-flop.” What did we learn back in January, courtesy Vanderbilt? That’s right - “flip-flop” is CODE for “Mormon.” Although “code” implies intent to deceive and for many of these people, Huck likely included, the only deception is self-deception. Huck is a lot of things, but dumb is not one of them. He has to know of the Vanderbilt study and he has to know that many of the people that are speaking here are obviously legitimate bigots. So, he has to know he is, at a minimum, providing cover for them.

Given the comments that appeared on his web site during the campaign, he was certainly willing to provide cover for the bigots then - so one must ask if proviing cover for bigots does not, in the final analysis, make one a bigot as well.

I will no longer give Huckabee any benefit of any doubt. I have accused him in the past of being “slick,” even “Clintonesque,” but I have refrained from using the truly ugly words like “bigot” or even plain old “jerk.” I think the one I shall use; however, is “hypocrite.” Remember that, very embarrassing “won’t air this negative ad I am about to get you to air for me for free” thing? Well, if this isn’t negative, I don’t know what is. Time for Mike Huckabee to take a long walk off a short pier.

And a bit of shame should fall on FoxNEWS as well. Do you think they would give a show to Democrat who provided cover for people that really did say (if anyone actually has?) Obama should not be president because he does not look like those others guys on the dollar bills? I bet not.

And The Press Stirs The Pot . . .

If religion and politics must mix, then the approach Rick Warren is taking this coming weekend, having BOTH candidates appear, is a decent way to go. But the press cannot help and try and turn that into a negative. The LATimes covers the upcoming event with these words:

But Warren’s willingness to soft-pedal political issues once central to U.S. evangelicals, such as opposition to abortion, has opened him to criticism that he has strayed from his calling to spread the Gospel.

In other words, they try to paint, like they always do, Evangelicals as small and close minded types lacking any generosity. Now, of course, there are some among us that fit that characterization:

TheCall — a group representing so-called “values voters” — will hold a rally on the National Mall as both candidates speak at Pastor Rick Warren’s 20,000-member Saddleback mega-church in southern California.

The author of the best-selling book, “The Purpose Driven Life,” is slated to interview both McCain and Obama.

TheCall, and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council — a Christian organization that opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights — will hold a press conference in Washington Friday to push McCain and Obama to delve further into issues facing evangelical voters, The Hill newspaper reported Saturday.

Now, if you read between the lines here, you get some insight into what is really going on. There are a bunch of people trying to lay claim to leading Evangelicals - its a good old power struggle. The problem is, Evangelicals are a terribly diverse group, and therefore extraordinarily difficult to lead. I would contend they in fact, cannot be lead as a bloc, and hence all this bickering. But what they are really doing is shuffling the deck chairs while the ship is sinking.

It would be much better for all these type to define their “sub-set” of Evangelicals and consolidate their leadership over that set to give them a solid base to work from. But no, not unlike Huckabee, they cannot set aside animosities. real and imagined, for the sake of their higher aims. And so, as a political movement, Evangelicals in all their diversity sink into irrelevancy.

*SIGH*

Lowell’s post-script:  Political cartoons usually carry a grain of truth; this one has more than a few grains. 

Humor aside, I ask this:  Where are the denunciations?  Is there no one in a visible position who has the guts to say something strong about this?  To call people out for hiding behind “flip-flops?”  Were he a man of more courage and with a better moral compass, Mike Huckabee could have earned himself a place in history by forefully denouncing those among his supporters who are simple bigots.  Instead, he gives them cover.
Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »