"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
As a public service, and without further comment, we post this excerpt from Dennis Prager’s radio show.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Prejudice, Religious Bigotry | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
We have already discussed over the weekend, the Mormon “slips” of Newt Gingrich and John King. But that is just the tip of the iceberg, as Jay Nordlinger points out. And like an iceberg, it appears to be something that while unseen can still sink the ship.
Over the weekend we were treated to three major left wing pieces discussing Romney’s religion and calling on him to discuss it “openly.” There was Randall Balmer in The New Republic:
The essential question, from the perspective of many voters, concerns the very nature of Mormonism, an upstart religion born in western New York in 1830 and persecuted for much of the nineteenth century.
And Then Frank Bruni in the NYTimes:
Four years later, he still avoids the word, trumpeting his faithfulness without specifying the faith. What’s surprising is that no one around him — not reporters, not rivals — talks about it all that much, either.
And most notably, Frank Rich in The New Yorker:
That faith is key to the Romney mystery. Had the 2002 Winter Olympics not been held in Salt Lake City, and not been a major civic project of Mormon leaders there, it’s unlikely Romney would have gotten involved. (Whether his involvement actually prompted a turnaround of that initially troubled enterprise, as he claims, is a subject of debate.) But Romney is even less forthcoming about his religion than he is about his tax returns. When the Evangelical view of Mormonism as a non-Christian cult threatened his 2008 run, Romney delivered what his campaign hyped as a JFK-inspired speech on “Faith in America.” This otherwise forgotten oration was memorable only for the number of times it named Romney’s own faith: once.
Michael Walsh, standing on NRO’s Corner said of the Rich piece:
It’s a cold day in hell when I recommend anything my old chum Frank Rich writes, but this long piece in New York magazine entitled “Who in God’s Name Is Mitt Romney?” is most definitely worth a read — especially for the Republican leadership — if only as a preview of a coming leftist line of attack against the presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney: his Mormon heritage and faith.
There is clearly a storm brewing. One is tempted to look at this and think that the general election is shaping up to be one of the ugliest in history. I think that is true, but I also think there is more at stake. In Florida we saw a willingness by Democrats to mess with the Republican primary process, blatantly. Two more piece appeared over the weekend that are very worthy of note. Jennifer Rubin:
Politico’s John Harris has a must-read column on the manufacture of outrage, a staple of modern campaigns, over Mitt Romney’s comments on the “very poor.”
[...]
And yet on this one, the right was arguably more guilty than the left in stoking hysteria. The arguments offered to justify the overreaction were decidedly unconvincing.
One must ask, “Why?” And so we turn to Sean Trende doing the numbers at Real Clear Politics:
Regardless, we see that a large portion of the GOP fight can be explained very well using only demographic variables. This is what I believe Cost picked up on when he found that northern conservatives voted for Romney, while southern conservatives voted against him. In the north, the conservatives tend to be non-evangelical. In the south, they tend to be evangelical (in Florida, they’re split).
Why this is the case is open to interpretation. The simplest answer is anti-Mormon bias, but that seems a bit too easy. After all, the alternatives are a pair of Catholics. The other possibility — and this is a problem with regression — is that religion could be a stand-in for ideology, and that, regardless of self-identification, a self-described conservative evangelical Republican is significantly to the right of a self-described conservative who is non-evangelical.
There is a clear picture emerging – the tensions inside the Republican party are real and the borders are defined, at least in some large measure, by religion. Now, of course, all primaries develop tensions inside a party, but religion adds a dimension to those tensions not normally seen. I don’t want to go all left-wing, “religion is evil” here, but a religious component to a conflict more often than not serves to intensify the conflict.
What we are seeing in the Ballmer, Bruni, and Rich pieces, not to mention related pieces centering around the recently released book “The Real Romney” questioning Romney’s “authenticity,” is an effort on the part of Obama’s media allies to cleave the Republican party in two. They don’t just want to win the presidency, I think they want to do away with us for good. It appears to this observer that they believe the largely unspoken religious element of this primary cycle gives the typical primary tensions more force – force that with a small nudge could cleave the party permanently. At the very least, they think they can force a large portion of the Republican base to sit this one out – and make it very hard for the Republicans to pull them back in.
Yes, there is still a primary battle to fight, but it is not too early to think about the general. At this point, the best way to think about the general is to deal with the tensions in the primary. In the lead up to Florida we wrote about the problems in lying to oneself. Just because we are not talking about Romney’s faith, does not mean it is not at play. To simply not talk about it is a form of self-deception. We can ill afford such deception with a general election looming ahead that is likely to be as ugly as this one.
Mitt Romney is now very likely going to be the nominee. It is time for those opposed to him for less than legitimate reasons to get over it. We need to get the primary battle back on a footing that does not supply the REAL opposition so much ammunition.
Posted in News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 2 Comments » | Print this post
| Email This Post
“Governor Mormon?”! Really? It’s going to be a very ugly general. But I wonder if that has anything to do with this?
Posted in News Media Bias, Religious Bigotry | 5 Comments » | Print this post
| Email This Post
Obama said a long time ago that he was going to use “weird” as a meme in a general election run against Mitt Romney. At the time everyone knew he meant “Mormon.” But there have a been some interesting developments in the primary race that could change his mind.
Essentially, the Mormon issue has shown local appeal, but is not playing generally – and might even be backfiring with moderates and independents. Gingrich misplayed it in Florida and got trounced. Santorum’s surrogates played it and he had no traction at all. (Note to Santorum – lose this guy and lose him publicly. The plausible deniability is spent.) Iowa was a virtual tie and the Evangelical vote split in Florida. You can bet your bottom dollar the “not Romney” votes from there will either go Romney or stay home in the general – they will not go Obama.
People may indeed think Mormonism “weird,” but in a world where we are all a little weird, we don’t like being attacked for it. Tone matters too. Romney payed hardball in Florida but Gingrich was just flat out nasty. A “vitriolic” and “spiteful” Obama might not be a good idea.
Which brings me to the Obama administration’s latest swipe at folks of faith:
The Obama Administration is standing by a decision to require all insurance plans to cover the use of contraceptives, but said Friday it would give some employers an additional year to comply.
The rule, which goes into effect August 1, 2012, requires all insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control. Many non-profits with religious affiliations, such as Catholic universities and hospitals, say that will force them to violate their basic tenets.
The Department of Health and Services announced Friday those employers would have until August 1, 2013, to meet the new requirement.
The push back from the Catholic church has been enormous – you can read about here, here and here. Politically, this is a very shrewd move on Obama’s part, even if it is onerous. The policy is based on his conviction that “most Americans” think the religious prohibitions against contraception and abortion are “weird.” But as things are shaping up, that conclusion has to be called into question. By making an announcement, any announcement, he has pushed the issue to the fore so he can test the waters before the general. By making THIS announcement he has 1) appealed to his base by keeping the policy in place, 2) appealed to moderates with the “reasonable” delay, and 3) really punted the issue into the next administration – hoping inertia, or his victory in November, will prevent it from being changed.
Unfortunately, this is policy, not simply an effort to shape public perception of someone in an election cycle. This matters.
Tuesday our friend Timothy Dalrymple suggested some “course corrections” to Governor Romney. Given what an effective spokesperson against a religion test Dalrymple has been this cycle, Team Romney would do well to listen.
Point #1: It’s never, never “all about the economy.”
[...]
Point #2: Don’t give up on evangelicals. Some very public evangelicals have very publicly denounced you and your faith. Your cherished religious community, the community in which you were raised by loving parents, in which you’ve raised your own children, the same community that you have served so tirelessly over decades, was slandered as a “cult” by an influential pastor. You, ergo, were portrayed as a cult member. Many evangelical leaders defended this choice of wording, and few have spoken out even against the more obvious efflorescences of anti-Mormon bigotry. To make matters worse, an entire generation of conservative evangelical activists/leaders gathered in Texas to rally around some candidate other than you. So it would be perfectly understandable if you felt that you had little incentive — or no stomach — for further engagement with evangelicals.
[...]
Of those evangelicals who oppose you, few do so passionately, and most are compelled not by prejudice but by misinformation about your record and your positions. In other words, many evangelicals support you now, and many more are willing to support you if they can be convinced that your stances on abortion, the family and religious liberties are sincere and impassioned, and not simply assumed for political convenience.
[...]
Point #3: Own your faith.
This may be the most important point of all. Your discipline is the stuff of legend. And after your father’s campaign for the presidency ran off the rails when he referred to a “brainwashing” on the Vietnam issue, the exercise of an extraordinarily meticulous self-control has become a pervasive theme in your family. But these things are largely responsible for the “Romneybot” moniker. Your behavior seems a little too programmed, too scripted, and therefore artificial. It makes it hard for many people to connect with you. And although Richard Land meant it in a different (and incorrect) sense, I believe he was inadvertently onto something when he said you’re “not Mormon enough” for many evangelicals.
You love God. You strive to follow God’s leading in your life. Although we would differ on the metaphysics of Christ’s nature, in practice your personal relationship with Jesus Christ looks an awful lot like the one that evangelicals enjoy. These are not things that northeasterners typically wear on their sleeves, and your campaign is understandably reluctant to shine a spotlight on your Mormonism. Evangelicals would grow more uncomfortable with you if they thought you were going to be making an argument on behalf of Mormonism throughout your presidency. So you should not engage in apologetics. But they will grow more comfortable with you if they see the depth, the vitality, and the heartfelt authenticity of your relationship with God. They will grow more comfortable if they better understand your pastoral experience (let’s call it what it is) as ward bishop and stake president. You have rich experiences in missions and preaching and pastoral counseling, and in all these ways you connected with ordinary people, ordinary workers, in the struggles of everyday life.
This ruling by the Obama administration gives Romney the perfect opportunity to follow this advise – simply by getting in front of the issue. This ruling by the Obama administration could be the force that heals the rift inside the Republican coalition. Mitt Romney in front of this issue accomplishes two very important things – it pulls social conservatives into camp Romney and in so doing it neutralizes “weird.” If that happens, Obama will have no choice but to get shrill and Gingrich just showed us how that will go.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 7 Comments » | Print this post
| Email This Post
Well the results are in and Romney wins Florida, and ALL her delegates, big time.
What a 10 days this has been. It started with with both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum receiving heinously anti-Mormon introductory comments at speeches. It ended with Newt Gingrich saying that Mitt Romney had no understanding of religious liberty or conscious, and revelations that Sarah Palin manages her Facebook page in a blatantly anti-Mormon fashion. WOW!
And yet, with all that religious bile spilled, Romney won going away. Well that is except among Evangelicals. According to USAToday exit polling Romney barely edged out Gingrich among those that professed to be “a born-again or evangelical Christian” 38% to 37%. In the words of the immortal Mr. Spock, “Fascinating Captain.” Another curious fact is that Jews comprised a mere 1% of the Republican electorate today. Michael Medved tweeted:
“Koshergate” apparently backfired-absurd Gingrich claim that Mitt denied kosher food to Holocaust survivors!
Medved claimed on a Hugh Hewitt radio interview that “Koshergate” is what kept Jewish Republicans home. This may account for why noted leftie Frank Rich claims:
Rich added, “It’s almost as if he’s closeted about his religion and I think that makes him seem fake.”
People are not truning out because of the religious incivility, so if you’re a leftie – keep ‘em home.
When I went looking for a video of Gingrich’s abysmal post-result speech, I found it here and noted this in the comments:
How Glenn Beck can NOT say that Romney is a progressive is beyond me It must be that Mormon brother hood
So, here’s what we really know. Evangelical heavy South Carolina has a clear distaste for a Mormon candidate. Exit polls and reports from GOTV callers seem to back this up. Evangelicals in Florida don’t care for him much either, but given the much more diverse nature of Florida they don’t matter. Most importantly, Florida looks a lot more like the nation as a whole than South Carolina does.
Everyone seems to think these results are determinative, even if the primary race is not over. So, let’s presume Romney will win the nomination and ask if the religion question can still hurt us if it is played heavily in the primary, as it has been to date. The answer seems to be that it clearly can. Amongst all but the Evangelicals, the religion issue seems to have become distasteful. Amongst Jews, who would have a particularly sensitive set of feelers to religious discrimination, it appears to be driving them away in droves.
Thus the real danger presented by Gingrich’s continued presence in the race, particularly if he continues in the shrill and nasty fashion he has, is that the moderates and independents on whom general elections always lie are going to be turned off to the Republican side of things. Fortunately, there are ultra-left places like Gawker and HuffPo just chomping at the bit to go all “Mormons are weird,” which should act as a counterbalance to that force. However, Obama does not seem to get smeared with the same brush as his media allies nearly so much as Romney will get smeared by a brush that should really only paint Gingrich and his increasingly small band of devotees.
It’s time to corner Gingrich, we simply cannot afford to let him appear to be a part of the Republican mainstream, not if he is going to continue to operate in this fashion. Gingrich’s non-concessionary speech struck me as someone that was trying to get his arms around his particular niche audience. I did not hear third party threats so much as I heard the kind of rhetoric one might expect when trying to build a social network and develop a media career.
I thought when Gingrich got into this thing it was a vanity campaign. He was the beneficiary of a confluence of some extraordinary forces (Perry’s dismal failure coupled with pretty strong anti-Mormon sentiment) and it went to his head – he started to take himself seriously. Tonight I heard a man returning to his original idea, with one notable exception – his audience is not where he thought it was. His audience is amongst the more extreme and less tasteful of our conservative Republican movement. Unlike Huckabee who after catering briefly to this element tacked center, Gingrich is tacking increasingly towards the hard and ugly right. Huckabee has built himself a nice little media empire. Gingrich may think that is what he is doing too, but he is so blowing his credibility that it may not materialize in the fashion he thinks it will.
But the biggest problem is he may give Obama a second term in the effort. We CANNOT let that happen.
The best place to start is to steal an issue from Gingrich. He prominently featured a discussion of the Obama adminsitration’s recent move against faith-based health care providers. The Catholic Church is coming out on this in the strongest possible terms. Mitt Romney needs to get in front of this as fast as he can. Where Gingrich appears to be religiously divisive, we need to build bridges, and hurl rocks at Gingrich to make sure we can build faster than he can destroy.
Posted in Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom | 4 Comments » | Print this post
| Email This Post
YouTube is full of people that think it is cool to see and hear themselves on the internet. David Parkman, whoever that is, must be one of those people. He has his own YouTube channel and his episodes tend to pull in less viewers than this blog has daily readers – by an order of magnitude. But he has his own logo and everything?!
Here is his latest installment, notable only because he repeats the shoddy journalism, to say the least, of Gawker. Now, if that is not enough, in the guise of an original presentation, he virtually reads the story word for word. Somewhere he missed the incomplete and very defensive corrections Gawker made. (check the story) He claims to have done “original research,” yet he could not even be bothered with original copy and clearly did not bother to read this blog.
You know, we probably just tripled this guy’s views – and that is not a good thing. But this story line is so ill-informed, so ugly and so distasteful that we have no choice.
Mr. Parkman, if you are going to pass on left-wing anti-religious garbage, it’s a free country – but please – when you claim to have “looked into it more” – actually do so.
Posted in News Media Bias, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom | 3 Comments » | Print this post
| Email This Post
