Article VI Blog

This morning’s email newsletter from the NYTimes contained an “Op-Doc” (Opinion Documentary?) that led one to this video.  (There is no capability to embed, you’ll have to follow the link.)  It was presented with this written introduction:

The American evangelical movement in Africa does valuable work in helping the poor. But as you’ll see in this Op-Doc video, some of their efforts and money feed a dangerous ideology that seeks to demonize L.G.B.T. people and intensifies religious rhetoric until it results in violence. It is important for American congregations to hold their churches accountable for what their money does in Africa.

This is pure propaganda that fails to makes its case, but its effects and conclusions remain frightening.  It deals almost entirely in anecdote, citing but a single statistic. (Uganda is 85% Christian.)  It strings together a series of unrelated facts, leaving out one extraordinarily important fact, to build a case that Evangelicals are try to pass laws in Uganda to kill homosexuals.  What are the facts it presents?

1. Lots of American Evangelicals give money to African mission, and some specifically target Uganda.  No surprise there, Africa is the poorest continent, of course, Evangelicals give money to help them.
2. Christianity identifies homosexual practice as aberrant and sinful.  Again, this is not news.  Nor, and this is vital, is it a rejection of the individual that feels homosexual impulses.  It simply asks those with such impulses to control them, as those of us with other sinful impulses are asked to control ours.
3. Because Uganda is 85% Christian, “God’s law often becomes government policy.”  Uganda is a democracy, more or less – no African democracy functions really well, and as such it will tend to reflect the opinion of the majority.  As the continued liberalization and falling church statistics in this democracy demonstrate.  But that is a far cry from the theocratic accusation this video makes – it is simply democracy at work.
4. A bill was introduced in the Ugandan Parliament that that provided for the death penalty for serial homosexual practice.  OK, that’s a bit overboard, but not as unreasonable as it sounds if you have the missing facts.  The piece does not in a superimposed written admission toward the end, but not spoken out loud, that the bill in its current form has removed the death penalty provisions.
5. They then attempt to help us conclude that Evangelicals in America and Uganda seek to kill homosexuals, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not.

Now, I trust when it is laid out that way without the stirring music, passionate voice over, and impactful images that absolute absence of a causal relationship between these facts is obvious.

Its the missing fact that is really troubling to me.  AIDS remains a virulent and massive killer in Africa.  Uganda is one of only two nations on that continent where AIDS is on the rise.  Now, while AIDS can be transmitted heterosexually, it remains primarily and overwhelmingly transmitted by homosexual contact.  Further, while advanced and extraordinarily expensive medical treatment has greatly eased the AIDS issues in this nation and Western Europe, such is often not available in Africa.  In a nation with the AIDS issues Uganda has, it could be argued that homosexual practice is an assault with intent to kill.  Under such circumstances, a discussion of extraordinary penalty, rightly rejected by the democratic process, is not so out of bounds.

What is truly troubling is that in all this there are very real issues for Christians in Uganda and Evangelicals in America to face.  How do we teach about the dangers, both moral and health related, of homosexual practice while keeping the conversation “in bounds?” How do American Evangelicals give their money which is much needed, and insure that it is not used wrongly?  I could go on.

But reason is not the goal of this film maker.  The condemnation of Christianity, and especially American Evangelicals seems to be the sole purpose of this video.

Let the record show that it is not the conservative Christian forces that are escalating the culture war.

Posted in Analyzing 2012, News Media Bias, Religion and Race, Religious Freedom, Social/Religious Trends, The Way Forward | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Election Day 2008 is a day that we made history, but I do not think we made as much history as people would like us to believe.  Yes, we elected the first African-American president, but did it mark an end to discrimination?  I don’t think so.  Had Election Day 2008 marked an end to discrimination, I don’t think we’d have noticed so much that we elected an African-American.  If you notice things like that, you’re still discriminating.

We have a chance to make history today, election day 2012, too.  But will it be big history or little history?  The second time we elect an African-American president – little history.  The first time we elect a Mormon president – little history.  If nobody notices race or religion much – big history.  And we will not know the answer to the big or little history question tonight either.  The answer will come in the retrospective and summary pieces published over the next few weeks.

But today is also a day to reclaim history.  Bigger than questions of race and religious identity are questions about just what kind of nation we want from this point forward.  I don’t need to lay out for you at this juncture the deep differences between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  For some months now the differences between the European-style social democratic state that seems to be the vision of Barack Obama and the traditional American vision of small government and self-reliance that Mitt Romney represents have been spelled out for us in excruciating detail.  In the last days, since September, we have seen a stark contrast between the indecision and appeasement reflexes of Obama and the assurances of American strength and resolve routinely offered by Romney.  Unfortunately, we have seen this last contrast spelled out for us in the painful and regrettable deaths of four great Americans serving their nation.

For those of us of faith, the biggest difference of all is the free practice of our religions represented by Mitt Romney against the use of government coercion to make us act against our most deeply held moral convictions.

I think today we are going to see Americans make history by reclaiming history – by turning the nation back to the things that have made it great – self-reliance, economic prosperity and our fundamental freedoms.  Be sure and do your part to reclaim history – VOTE!

Lowell adds . . .

It’s been six and one-half years since John and I started this blog. What an interesting journey it has been. Now is the day we decide whether Mitt Romney will be president of the United States. Amazing.

I find myself agreeing with Peggy Noonan. (I don’t always do that.)

We begin with the three words everyone writing about the election must say: Nobody knows anything. Everyone’s guessing. I spent Sunday morning in Washington with journalists and political hands, one of whom said she feels it’s Obama, the rest of whom said they don’t know. I think it’s Romney. I think he’s stealing in “like a thief with good tools,” in Walker Percy’s old words. While everyone is looking at the polls and the storm, Romney’s slipping into the presidency. He’s quietly rising, and he’s been rising for a while.

I hope she is right. What I am certain of is this: Mitt Romney is an excellent man, one of the finest of men. I think the American people have gotten a whiff of this fact, and that has something to do with why many voters have turned to him in the last four weeks.

But being a fine man is not enough. Jimmy Carter was a fine man, but an ineffective president. Romney is a fine man who is also supremely competent, a man who does not fail a trust given to him. I thought of the Governor when I read these lines by Raymond Chandler, sent to me by a friend:

…down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor—by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world.

I hope that man is elected President today.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religion and Race, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Fox News:

The reverend and civil rights advocate who gave the benediction at President Obama’s inauguration suggested at a recent Obama re-election rally that he thinks white people are going to hell — though he later said it was just a joke.

The Rev. Joseph Lowery spoke at a rally Saturday in Georgia. According to an account in the Monroe County Reporter, “Lowery said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell. Then he mellowed and just said most of them were.

“Now, he said, he is back to where he was,” according to the newspaper.

A joke?  Really?  Last time I looked it was not funny to suggest people would spend eternity in condemnation.  And just to show the total embrace Obama has given this “gentleman”:

Lowery was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 by President Obama.

There you go.  You want awards from the President, just condemn an entire race to hell.  Suddenly Mike Huckabee looks really smart and tolerant.

Posted in Prejudice, Religion and Race, Understanding Religion | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I am beginning to think I grossly overestimated Barack Obama.  Now of course, after almost four years of his administration it is virtually impossible to UNDERestimate his capabilities as president, but I must now call into question his political capabilities.  I have thought him a capable politician – after all, he did get elected on pretty much nothing last time.  But if what is happening now is any judge, his ’08 election was about everything BUT Barack Obama.

The last years of his non–governance have always had me thinking that he was behind the eight-ball in this campaign.  Therefore, I have expected this to be an ugly campaign.  Chief among the ugliness I have expected the race card and the Mormon card – possibly in tag-team action.  I have expected them to be played slickly and therefore effectively.  We are beginning to see them deployed, but they are being deployed in a fashion reminiscent of a drowning man reaching for anything that floats.  Such things are not useful if they are flung about, they must be carefully aimed and thoughtfully utilized so as to create maximal negative effect on your opponent without getting too much of the mess on yourself.

Instead, what have we got?

Well, the race card is being played over a comment Tagg Romney made on the radio.  Come on – after all the death threats and other nonsense Republicans have been treated to in recent years, this is a big deal racial issue?

And the Mormon card is trying to be played out of the “binders of women” thing – and not as a joke, despite yesterday.  Besides, when it comes to jokes about binders, this is the only one I have found funny to date.  Besides, for the Mormon card to be effective, it has to be aimed at peeling off Evangelicals, not echoing inside Leftland.  But check out these articles.

Oh, and remember Tuesday night when I said right after the debate:

Romney’s take down of the Obama lack-of-a-record and failure to live up to his ’08 campaign rhetoric was devastating – DEVASTATING!  That single couple of minutes by Romney decides the debate heavily in his favor.

Well, looks like the campaign folk agreed with me.

Folks, this is not a picture of effective political action – it really is a picture of a drowning man.  And so, I’m taking the weekend.

I’ll be at the Naval Academy watching my “nephew” play basketball and the Midshipmen play Indiana in football.  (Watching the Hoosiers play football is an exercise in futility I have not enjoyed for a couple of decades.)  I will next return to the Internet on Twitter Monday night during the debate and post either afterward or Tuesday morning, depending.

I leave you in Lowell and John Mark’s most capable of hands until then.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Political Strategy, Religion and Race, Religious Bigotry | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The townhall format to be used tonight is a fascinating one.  One the one hand, it is when the politician most directly interacts with the people.  Townhalls carry with them a risk; however.  Probably the most remembered townhall question of all time was at a Bill Clinton event on MTV and the question was “Boxers or briefs?”  And thus the era of the rock star president was born.  My point is that at a townhall, people are able to get up and ask questions that make their personal agenda, for at least a moment, national issues.

I have been in townhall settings with Gov. Romney and watched him listen diligently and carefully to people that had personal tales of grief and sorrow and offer comfort.  I have also seen people get up and ask the most ridiculous questions – ones that make “B or b?” look almost relevant.  A good man like Romney cannot be simply dismissive, but he must move on.

The point is that a townhall is much shakier ground than a normally moderated debate, where even if the press is grossly biased, they are predictable.  In a format like tonight, the candidates must rely on the moderator and the staff to sort the questiones and their questions into something reasonable.  But that also gives the moderator and staff an opportunity to allow in questions that might otherwise never see the light of day.

And hence, if we are going to see the Mormon card played in a debate, tonight is the night.  The question is currently delegitimized sufficiently that should a moderator ask it, Romney could be dismissive – but not so from a participant in a townhall.  Romney also cannot afford to simply turn such a question into an attack on Jeremiah Wright, then he will be accused to dodging the question altogether.  And if the question gets in tonight, by virtue of its presence in the debate even if momentary, the floodgates are opened for the issue everywhere.

Watch closely tonight it is going to be interesting.  People are just dying to play the card if they can find a “legitimate” means to do so.  In Canada they are trying to play it while poking fun at religious people generally.  And the Daily Beast is accusing Romney’s father of lying in support of his Mormon missionary work.  In the meantime, a man that has tried to ride herd on the Godblogosphere for a long time now, correcting even minute points of doctrinal deviance with all the subtlety of a nuclear weapon has decided to vote for Romney.

Posted in debates, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religion and Race, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

So, on Saturday we looked at a report from “sources inside the Obama campaign” claiming that David Axelrod had OKed the “nuclear option,” that is to say playing the Mormon card.  As an initial reaction, I said:

Am I shocked or surprised by this?  Not really. The Obama campaign quiver is so empty that the rock-throwing was bound to commence.  I am, however, absolutely stunned that the internal campaign discipline is such that this word would leak out.

Regardless of that fact, and even the lack of plausible deniability this report creates for the Obama campaign, it does not mean they cannot be successful with it.  For one, the anonymous nature of the sourcing robs the report of complete reliability.  That coupled with the fact that all Axelrod is really only trying to suppress the already wary Evangelical vote means that he can play the card subtly and minimize the risk involved.  Because he is trying to convince people for whom Mormonism is already an issue, he does not really have to say “Mormonism” out loud – to make his point.

Case-in-point 1 – Stories from reliably left wing outlets (CNN) about Romney efforts to reach out to the evangelical community.  “Can he succeed?”  Paragraphs like this:

Polls show that although most evangelicals have come around to Romney, there’s a sizable chunk who have not. With those voters making up a huge part of the GOP base in swing states like Ohio, Iowa and Virginia, whether DeMoss’ gambit works could mean the difference between an Obama or a Romney White House.

Even stories that are not so blatant, but that do point out that there is an issue do not help too much.  Such stories serve to remind the few that are struggling that they are struggling.  Rather than allow them to come to peace with the outcome of the primaries, such reminders serve to reinforce a feeling of alienation from the Republican party that could keep them home come November.

Case-in-point 2 – Axelrod rapidly capitalized on that apparent sense of alienation on the Sunday shows:

Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod had a retort Sunday after a week of criticism from Republicans in Tampa — at least our party’s unified.

Or so he claimed in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

“We don’t have the problems that the other party has. We’re not divided. We don’t have to worry about what people are saying on the side, or about their affection for the president. We don’t have those problems. We don’t have the reinvention convention,” he said. “We’re a unified party.”

Do you see what is going on there?  He is not talking to a general audience there, he is speaking specifically to those that feel a bit alienated from the party and reinforcing that feeling of alienation.    At no time does he say the word “Mormon,” but to those for whom Mormonism is an issue, he does say, “See you are not really a part of the Republican party.  Why would you want to go out and vote for this Romney character?  He is not ‘one of you.’”

This statement coming from Axelrod so soon after the report we looked at Saturday lends credence to that report.  When this campaign is over I think we will look back at this Fox News Sunday interview as the time the first card from the Mormon deck was laid on the table directly by the Obama campaign.

Case-in-point 3 – Overt mentions of race serve to ring the Mormon bell.  In endorsing same-sex marriage, Obama basically punted away the African-American religious vote.  But he cannot let Romney pick-up those votes.  There has been enough talk of the Mormon history with race, which is not that different than any other predominately white sect’s history, that I think most African Americans are going to be very wary of Mormonism.  And so, the mere mention of race in this election cycle is going to also saw on the Mormon string, and thus they hope to keep those votes on the sidelines.

There is one other factor that does not help here.  Romney’s nomination is a tremendous step forward for the Mormon community.  But I do think that the celebrations should wait until after the general election.  Far and away, the most repeated story of the weekend was along the lines of these example from the New York Times and Washington Post.  Says the NYT headline:

Mormon Says Romneys Are Leading Church Into Mainstream

One cannot deny the truth of that statement; however it also serves to illuminate the internal party divisions that the other side is trying to capitalize upon.  Back in the ’08 cycle, the most cited fear of Evangelicals was that a Romney nomination would make Mormonism a more viable alternative to traditional Christianity.  Of course it will and has, which to my mind simply means we Evangelicals have to get more competitive, but for those prone to sulk at home and lick their wounds, stories like this will serve to suppress their votes and Romney needs those votes.

This is subtle stuff right now, but i it lay the seeds of a very nasty campaign to follow.  It will be interesting to see the DNC this week.  I do not expect to hear the word “Mormon,” but I do expect to hear a bunch of nasty, personal criticism – What else they got?  Voters don’t like that much and if we are lucky they will overplay the hand enough that we can group the Mormon attacks in with the other personal nastiness.  Only time will tell on that.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Political Strategy, Prejudice, Religion and Race, Religious Bigotry | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post