Article VI Blog

We said we would not post until unless something big broke, and well, I think it has.  The supposed “War on Christmas” is kind of old news now, and I never could get too excited about the placement of creches at fire houses, or not – that’s not what will kill Christmas.   I am far more worried about stuff that matters more.

My business life has been awful this Christmas season in the sense that there has been no slow down.  Typically the phone quits ringing and I get to use the later half to two-thirds of December to catch up on all the stuff that has been sitting while I was putting out fires.  Not this year, at least not to date.  As late as yesterday afternoon, I was getting emergency type calls from clients who had one government agency or another breathing down their neck demanding something by Christmas – or else.  And who knows what next week will hold?  In California, much of this is driven by stepped up enforcement intended to pad the grossly depleted state coffers.  The only thing that will kill business faster than over taxation is fines – but that is a story for another time.

The Christmas spirit has been hard to find this year.  So I sympathized when I read the quote from Senator Jon Kyl that Robert Costa carried on The Corner:

“Senator Reid is using the Christmas holiday as an anvil to pound people into submission,” says Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) in a conversation with National Review Online. “He’s no longer being realistic.”

“Harry Reid and the Democrats can’t win this debate on the merits,” says Kyl. “The only way they prevail now is by using the artifice that members supposedly can’t go home until we’re done. For Christians, this is one of the holiest days of the year. We want to be with our families. Reid knows this. It’s a very bad way to make public policy and horrible to use that kind of force to pass a bill of this kind.”

That dear friends is a war on Christmas that matters – in so many ways.

I am struck by how it emphasizes the fact that not being a religious bigot means not only not bad-mouthing someone’s religion, but respecting it, even if not believing it.

I am reminded of a time, a long time ago, I worked for a company in which the entire upper management was Jewish – observantly Jewish.  As the Easter Season approached I requested Good Friday afternoon off for my largely Mexican Catholic crew to observe the Stations of the Cross.  It was granted for a few hours until the company controller handed me the assignments for my crew for physical inventory that day and the president/owner of the company attempted to rescind his granting of time off.   In a display of temper about which I should not be proud I pointed out that the upper management of the company took six weeks aannually off for religious observances and that four hours for my crew was a small request, and certainly a fair one.   I was told by that upper management that as the owners, “They were exceptional.”  I told them they were words-I-will-not-repeat-here (’bigot’ was the kindest).  This point was accompanied by a physical display (I was much, much younger at the time) that resulted in drywall repairs, and I stormed out.

Senator Reid is free to celebrate Christmas in any way he sees fit – that is the beauty of America.  But it is a subtle and ugly form of bigotry to use his different and personal view in disregard of that of others.

I have, as an evangelical Presbyterian, staunchly defended here the rights of Mormons, and we should here remind everyone that Harry Reid is a Mormon, to identify themselves as Christians.  But this is not about his Mormonism (though some schmuck will probably try to make it so), this is about Harry Reid.  So it is with a great deal of hesitation that I will declare that the actions of Harry Reid in this case are decidedly unchristian.  Bigotry, even subtle bigotry of this type, lacks charity – which is the preeminent hallmark of any Christian.

This is supposed to be a season of beauty for all, and one in which many of us celebrate the birth of our Savior.  Well, this is just ugly and it robs all of us of the beauty of the season.  Shame on Harry Reid.

Lowell chiming in . . .

Well, we are seeing here a mixture of hard-nosed politics and religion (used as a club). On the political side, Reid does not want his senators going home for Christmas and hearing from constitutents just how unpopular the Senate healthcare bill is. On the religious side, he knows Christmas celebrations are the most sacred of family traditions at one of the two most sacred times of year for all Christians. His behavior is indeed disgusting.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom | 6 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Time doesn’t permit a long post today, but we can offer a few quick hits:

Mike Huckabee, Convicts, and Religion

Anyone not living in a cave for the last 48 hours knows that Maurice Clemmons, the murderer of four police officers in Seattle, was once in state prison in Arkansas – until Mike Huckabee commuted his sentence.  Huck has been running away from that decision and attempting to spread the blame to others involved in processing Clemmons through the legal system.  It’s been suggested that Huckabee’s faith played a huge role in his clemency decisions as governor.  The man himself has not yet addressed that question, probably because he doesn’t want to touch it.

That’s understandable.

Consider:  While Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee issued 1,033 pardons, twice as many as the prior three Arkansas governors combined.  Just as a point of comparision, Mitt Romney did not issue a single pardon while Governor of Massachusetts.  I have a hunch that Huckabee, as a potential 2012 presidential candidate, is now . . . toast.

David Frum Thinks The Whole GOP Religion Situation Is Terrible

At least that’s what he seems to be saying here.  Frum, who’s unhappy with religious conservatives generally, sees the Manhattan Declaration’s failure to include Mormons as yet another example of Evangelical bias against that faith.  Well, the Declaration was authored not just by Evangelicals but also Catholics and Orthodox Christians, something Frum doesn’t seem to grasp.  Also, as I noted here, the Declaration is a doctrinal trinitarian document.  Mormons and other heterodox Christian faiths could not have signed it (to say nothing of Orthodox Jews), so the document’s drafters didn’t even invite them to sign.  There are political reasons to quibble with the Declaration’s narrowness, but to this Latter-day Saint it doesn’t look like a slap at Romney or Mormonism.

Meanwhile, this writer at the Frum Forum plows ground that have already been plowed ad nauseam.  An atheist, he thinks Romney’s religion is fair game:

Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.

What a stunning insight.  Move along, folks, nothing here to see . . . .  (And thanks to our reader Mary Lynn, who told us about this piece.)

And Finally: The Question, Studied Once Again

This recently-published study reaches some intuitively unsurprising conclusions:

Our results do, however, indicate that there is something Romney’s supporters can do to assuage concerns about his Mormonism. People who objectively know a lot about Mormons — that is, those who scored 100% on a short quiz on facts about Mormonism — were much less likely to be bothered by the claim that Mormons are not Christians. In contrast, respondents who claimed they knew a lot about Mormons, but who actually did not, were bothered most of all by claims about Mormonism. . . .

In other words, our study suggests that Romney’s supporters would do well to encourage those who are troubled by his faith to become better informed about Mormonism.

Such a discussion would likely help Romney: Information helps and ignorance hurts his chances. More important, it would help broaden religious tolerance in America.

Well, we certainly agree with that.

John Adds His Two Cents

There is much I am tempted to say about Mr. Huckabee and the role religion played in his commutations.  It is an expression of much that is wrong on a religious level with the shallowness that has become Evangelicalism.   But this is not a religious blog so I shall let that be.

Huckabee has been striking out at his critics over this, even when he admitted he was unlikely to run just 24 hours before the story broke.  Therein may lie the problems for future politics.  Huckabee has been the standard bearer for many Evangelicals and as he plays this so are they likely to go.  Slipping into defensive “You don’t get it’s and “I told you so’s will not be productive for that group.

Which brings me to the Manhattan Declaration.  Religiously motivated political activism was, in the 2008 election cycle highly fractured.  It fractured along left-right lines, which is not new, but visible for the first time, and it fractured between the ideologues and the pragmatists.  The ideologues retreated to Hucks and Palins of the world- fueled no doubt by anti-Mormon sentiment amongst some as the study cited above demonstrates – and as a result hurt conservative effectiveness.  Unity needs to be restored amongst the traditional coalition or all is lost.

The trinitarian references in the Manhattan Declaration, as one of our commenters has pointed out, are pro forma and not necessary to the primary stances taken therein.  They are a reference that would come for many involved as straightforwardly as breathing.  Their inclusion is likely because to debate them would have increased the fracture lines that were attempting to be healed.  Little can be judged about the relationship with Romney and Mormons on a political level until the healing is complete.

Frum’s commentary is designed to foment fracture along any fault line he can find.  It’s quite obvious that is what is at play here.  And yet, the commenter at Frum’s site shows why we must heal all such fractures.  To the non-religious, who are primarily left-leaning, there is no real distinction between the orthodox and the heterodox – such distinctions appear to them to be infighting and to be politically exploited.  Huckabee’s defensiveness, and that of his supporters, is another such fracture line.

When things like this happen, we would be wise to look for ways to heal the fractures not widen them.

EVEN LATER ADDITION BY JOHN:

Our old friend Joe Carter has posted an important response to the Frum commenter (Alex Knepper) that we discuss above:

Knepper has a valid point about certain religious beliefs and traditions being fair game for scrutiny while others are off-limits. There is a peculiar double-standard in place, though the criteria for which ones are included is difficult to discern. I also agree that religious beliefs—indeed I would include all beliefs of any type—should be considered fair game when evaluating a candidate. The question Knepper leaves unanswered, though, is how such beliefs are to be evaluated in the public square. Where is the line between reasonable criticism and irrational bigotry?

Personally, I’m open to being exceedingly tolerant of raw religious bigotry as long as its accompanied by a healthy portion of religious liberty. When we enter the public square I’m willing to allow anyone to make whatever nasty remarks they like about evangelicalism as long as I can presents arguments that are rooted in my faith and that are given a fair hearing.

Interesting approach, but I am not sure it works.  The entire point of prejudice and bigotry is to discount arguments by the object of the prejudice and bigotry.  Hence prejudicial references are not admitted in courts because they mean the jury’s judgment is compromised with regards to the pertinent facts of the case.  In other words there is no religious liberty when there is raw religious bigotry – bigotry precludes liberty of any sort – total bigotry against blacks resulted in total slavery, the ultimate denial of liberty.

Bigotry and prejudice are the enemy of law and ours is a nation of laws, not men.

Lowell’s Postscript:

I’ll be more blunt than John:  Joe Carter’s argument is just plain nuts.  To say “raw religious bigotry” is just fine “as long as its [sic] accompanied by a healthy portion of religious liberty” is an argument so internally inconsistent as to be laughable. But there’s nothing funny about what Carter says. There can not be any acceptable level of religious liberty in the presence of raw religious bigotry. I fear that Carter is simply trying, however feebly, to make an argument that leaves room for his own approach to Romney’s faith in the public square. He needs to re-think his position, and soon.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Electability, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

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

So what is the controversy all about?

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

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

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

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

The Key Points of The Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We couldn’t have said that better ourselves.

The Upshot

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

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

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

John adds his thoughts:

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

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

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Pundits have been talking about the 2012 Republican field for some time now.  I’m not sure Byron York is the first major political soothsayer to mention Romney’s religion in the new presidential election cycle, but he’s surely one of the first.  Near the end of an otherwise policy-oriented Washington Examiner column on Romney’s activities, York tacks on this paragraph:

There’s also no way to know whether the Mormon factor will again come into play. In 2008, some evangelicals rejected Romney on the basis of his religion, even after he gave a much-publicized speech on the role of faith in his life and in politics. That might still be an issue next time around.

Does the expression “short shrift” come to mind?  Or maybe “understatement?”   Both do for me, but I can’t really blame Byron York.  His comment is accurate as far as it goes, and to York’s credit, in the 2008 cycle he always seemed most interested in policy issues and paid little attention to Romney’s faith.  In fact, I always felt that York considered “the Mormon factor” a distraction.  It is inevitable that the subject will come up.  What we don’t know yet is whether 2012 will be a replay of 2008 (a very depressing thought), or if the news media and the electorate will move on, at least to come extent.

Note:  Jennifer Rubin managed to write about the race, with prominent mention of Romney, without bringing up religion.  Kudos to her.  She’s a fine conservative thinker, so maybe there’s hope for the rest of the group.

I will succumb to the temptation to prognosticate just a bit.

• As John has written, politically conservative Evangelicals are in danger of isolating themselves from the rest of conservatism.  (For the record, I do not want to see them do that, if the majority of them want to play a constructive role and will resist the temptation to take their ball and go home.)  This will continue unless some leader steps forward who can pull them in a different direction.

• Sarah Palin will be a force to be reckoned with.  I cannot see her playing the Mormon card.  I have no idea how viable she will really be in 2012, but religious conservatives love her and will pay attention to what she says.  She may well be the leader I wish for above.

• Huckabee will be so busy fighting for his political life against Palin that he may not be able to play that card at all without looking terribly small and desperate.  (He looked that way in 2008 too, but he’s already shown he’s capable of blazing new trails of smallness and desperation.)

Beyond that I can’t predict anything, other than that it’s going to be an interesting ride. But you already knew that.

John comments: At this point I am not sure Palin will run, not at all sure.  In two recent and highly unscientific polls at Instapundit she blew away the field, but she has no organization to speak of.  The Values Voters Summit is a MUST for her and she did not show.  She has a huge fan base, but in terms of political insiders – people that matter – I just do not see a “camp” forming around her.  She is falling behind the curve rapidly.  Her family situation is such that she needs to make some serious money.  She was in Hong Kong speaking during the VVS, getting paid serious money.  She cannot make that kind of coin as a candidate.  That looks like her priority at the moment.  In this environment, coming to the game late will likely put her out altogether.

I do not think she is necessary to make the Huckster look small and desperate.  He is very capable of that himself, and doing a pretty good job so far.  The isolation of some conservative Evangelicals is inevitable and the Huckster will lead that parade.  Fortunately, in terms of numbers, it is not that many Evangelicals.  Only problem is they will take the label with them.

That crowd will only be a problem for Romney if the press enables it.  They should be ashamed for the way they handled it last time, and I think those that are not completely in the bag for the left (there are a few) are so ashamed.  Question is, how do we make the rest of the press feel it?

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Electability, Religious Bigotry | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

It somehow saddens me that a mere 7 months into the Obama administration, the Republican primary for ‘12 is beginning to take shape.  It’s too early, but so be it.  It has been clear since virtually a month after the last election that Mitt Romney was working hard to 1) help the Republican cause in what ever way possible and while doing so to 2) keep open, and enlarge if possible, an already very large door through which he could walk to try again in ‘12.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is another that has been spoken of as a possible candidate, but the rather massive press coverage of statements by him yesterday make it plain that he too is seeking the make sure he can run should the proper conditions prevail.

The most interesting Pawlenty take that I read yesterday was from Dan Gilgoff.   He speaks of Pawlenty’s rather impressive evangelical bona fides, but his relative silence on them.

Unlike prospective Republican White House contenders like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, Pawlenty doesn’t talk like a culture warrior, which helps explain why Pawlenty coverage in the national media ignores his faith-based side. But can his less strident tone help him win independents in a way that Huckabee and Palin have failed to, while his evangelical side makes him a hit with the GOP’s social conservative base?

That is interesting from a couple of aspects.   The analysis of Huck and Palin is dead on – playing the religion card is a two-edged sword, it alienates some, even as it solidifies a base of others.  These reader comments to EFM from yesterday make plain the problems that both candidates have.

But more interesting yet is the fact that like Pawlenty, Romney says almost nothing about his faith, and yet he was prodded and probed and in the last cycle and it seemed his name could not be mentioned without the word “Mormon” appearing in very close proximity.  The double standard is so plain and obvious as to be distressing.  Even Gilgoff’s lack of mention of Romney has been interesting.  Gilgoff has proven to be an extraordinarily good source of information about inside Evangelical politics, but does his lack of Romney talk indicate that Romney remains simply out of the picture in Evangelical-land, or does it reveal a personal bias?

As we said, it is early, early, early.  This blog started about two years before Super Tuesday of the last cycle.  It is currently 33 months before the next one.   To date, The Question is getting no play. But then smart Evangelicals know that they were harmed by it last time, as Gilgoff’s analysis of Pawlenty intimates.  It is going to get interesting.

The “Weird Factor”…

… is a term I have heard used to describe why Romney’s religion got so much play in the last cycle, even in places where religion is generally not discussed.  Well, when it comes to weird, it’s hard to top this gem of a video that was making the rounds yesterday.  (It was all over, but HT: Gilgoff)

It makes the case that  President Obama is the anti-Christ.  Such charges have been bandied about concerning political opponents of Christians pretty much since the Apostle John wrote of his Revelations in A.D. 90.  The fact that the charge has yet to have any substance to it, even when applied to total reprobates like Nero and Caligula, all the more gives it the appearance conspiracy theory nonsense, right up there with the Bilderbergers and “chemtrails.”

And people think Mormon beliefs are bizarre.  Hmmmm.

Lowell adds:  I can’t add anything other than my usual amazement that someone spent that much time on such hogwash.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Political Strategy, Reading List, Religious Bigotry | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update by Lowell:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High School Civics class, first day, first words:

Ours is a nation of laws not men.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sphere: Related Content

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