©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

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.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

“Governor Mormon?”!  Really?  It’s going to be a very ugly general.  But I wonder if that has anything to do with this?

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

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.

And It Provides Mitt Romney With An Opportunity

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.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

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.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

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.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Newt Gingrich accused Mitt Romney of repeatedly disregarding the religious rights of Americans at a campaign stop in Tampa Monday, telling reporters that his opponent had a “lack of concern for religious liberty.”

When it comes to how they handle faith, Gingrich said, Romney and President Barack Obama are cut from the same cloth.

“You want a war on the Catholic Church by Obama? Guess what: Romney refused to allow Catholic hospitals to have conscience in their dealing with certain circumstances,” Gingrich said, apparently referring to the handling of emergency contraception in universal health care laws.

He went on, speaking to a CNN reporter as a pack of press surrounded him: “Romney cut off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare. Both of them have the same lack of concern for religious liberty.”

Gingrich escalated the attack in his remarks in an airplane hangar, saying Americans deserve a “government that respects our religions.”

“I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every … religion on the planet, I would like him to respect our religion,” he said. A campaign spokesman confirmed Gingrich was referring to Romney.

What?  I mean seriously – WHAT? The kosher meal crack has already been shown to be a lie.  Jennifer Rubin:

His attacks on Mitt Romney have gotten loonier by the day. The latest is that Romney denied kosher meals to Medicare patients while he was governor of Massachusetts. According to the Romney camp, he issued numerous vetoes during his tenure for cost-cutting measures and restored funding for the kosher meals. The New York Post backs up Romney’s account: “The Massachusetts Legislature approved an amendment to restore the $600,000 to finance the kosher meals allowing a ‘most vulnerable segment of our population’ to ‘enjoy a special dignity,’ according to the Jewish Community Council.”

OK – lying – that’s not new with Gingrich, but he usually reserves his lies for talking about himself.  Now he is lying about Romney and his record.  Rubin handled the kosher meal issue pretty well.  I am getting tired of people conflating Massachusetts healthcare with what Romney wanted to do.  Romney vetoed efforts by the Democrat legislature to do what Gingrich complains about, and the legislature overrode the veto.  There is no credible way to lay that one in Romney’s lap.

But all of that would have been just politics at their ugly usual save for that last crack by the Newtser:

“I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every … religion on the planet, I would like him to respect our religion,” he said. A campaign spokesman confirmed Gingrich was referring to Romney.

At a minimum that’s a dog whistle.  Look, I understand there is a significant group of people out there who do not want to vote for Romney because of his faith - and I am sure that they are upset that their argument has been shot down to the point that virtually all reasonable people feel it illegitimate.  But that does not change the facts.  Apparently, however, Gingrich is willing to change some other facts in order to get that religious argument back into the debate.

What is worst of all is that in the middle of a very serious war on religion in all its expressions from the government along precisely the lines that Gingrich outlines, he is willing to aim his barbs at others on his team rather than at those that deserve the fire.  Newt Gingrich clearly is about nothing but Newt Gingrich.

And He Has Help, from None Other Than…Sarah Palin

Everyone knows Sarah Palin, a noted Gingrich supporter, has a much-visited Facebook page.  It looks like any defense of Romney’s Mormonism on Palin’s page is promptly removed.  Consider these two screen shots:

See that middle post – with the girl’s picture beside it (we have erased the names for obvious reasons).  It reads:

I was told if we defend the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints, we are then banned form your Facebook page.  I would hope “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM” is still part of your beliefs, and this is not true.  I am a catholic, yet I have researched hte LDS< visited their headquarters in SLC when there on vacation.  I have many firends who are members of the LDS, and a family member who converted to the Mormon Religion.  I am sick of the bashing of a religion by supposed Conservatives and Republicans.  It must end!

Now, take a look at the screenshot below.  It is taken from that same place on Palin’s Facebook page about 5 hours later; the comment just quoted is missing.  This blog does not provide room for us to reproduce these screenshots full size and maintain readability; just click the picture and it will come up full size.

These screenshots were sent to us by  loyal reader Chanelle Jones, who emailed us.  We’ll let her tell her own story:

Some one [ed. note: on the Facebook page] said that Romney was a Mormon that vowed to destroy America … which comment is still available BTW  – I can find it if you want … she said a couple other things that were pretty nasty towards our religion and Romney. My brother left a comment asking that the offensive comment  be removed and remember to keep Church and State seperate. His comment was deleted and then he was banned. He emailed me, frustrated, and out of couriosity I checked it out. I then left a comment pointing out that Sarah was censoring her comments and violating freedom of speech. I asked that she remember what our nation was founded on … freedom of religion … and also asked to have the offensive comments removed. One reader left a comment of “Wow … censorship?” His and my comments were then deleted and I was banned. BUT the same vile comment {and now many others} were left for all to see. I really wish I could have seen it coming and took a screen shot of it. That’s why when I saw the comment today I did and then watched it.

Well, that pretty much speaks for itself.  Sarah Palin is a private citizen and entitled to handle her Facebook page as she sees fit, but she is an influential private citizen and by defending Gingrich in this fashion, she paints him with the same bigoted brush she has painted herself.

Newt Gingrich and, sadly, Sarah Palin have just disqualified themselves from serious consideration for high office.

ADDENDUM – 5 HOURS AFTER INITIAL PUBLICATION

The Wall Street Journal gives us more on Gingrich’s statements:

“He has no understanding of the importance of conscience or the importance of religious liberty in this country,” said Mr. Gingrich of Mr. Romney, who is a Mormon. “I will make religious liberty your right, to go with God with no government interference.”

Now wait just a doggone minute.  I thought Newt Gingrich was an historian.  And yet saying that Mitt Romney, a Mormon, “has no understanding of the importance of conscience or the importance of religious liberty in this country,” may be one of the most historically ignorant statements made in this cycle.  A good deal of the religious liberty law that has been written or decided in this nation is a direct result of Mormons and their early practices.  I don’t think there is a religion in this nation that has more direct experience with religious liberty than the Mormons.

This nation now stands by silently while Islamic men practice polygamy in major urban centers.  Can you imagine what a different nation this would be if the same had been true for the Mormons practice?  The settling of the west and the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad would be very different and less consequential stories than they actually are.  Some historian.

And then, the “importance of conscience.”  Well, Newt Gingrich followed his own conscience into serial adultery – ’nuff said.

Should Florida come out as the polls predict and Romney wins, we will be able to consider Gingrich’s downward spiral into this sort of ignorant pathetic tripe pitiable, but humorous.  But for the next few hours at least it’s just wrong, nasty and ugly.

Lowell adds . . .

As to John’s comments above I’ll just note that in 2008 Mitt Romney shared the Canterbury Medal for religious freedom with Elie Wiesel and a few others.

The Canterbury Medal is the Becket Fund’s highest honor. It recognizes courage in the defense of religious liberty and is named for Canterbury Cathedral, where Thomas à Becket was martyred by the knights of King Henry II for his own defense of religious freedom. The Canterbury Medal is thus given annually to one “who has resolutely and publicly refused to render to Caesar that which is God’s.”

Gingrich’s criticism of Romney is absurd and embarrassing.  A “lack of concern for religious liberty?” Oh, please.
.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

So far we have avoided quoting what Gawker said, for fear of disseminating further what we consider to be sloppy, calloused journalism — at best. But there is more information now, and to put the sorry episode in full perspective, here’s what the author, John Cook, originally wrote:

Gawker’s substantial Mormon readership has come through for us: Two readers have sent us confirmation that Edward Davies, Mitt Romney’s militantly atheist father-in-law, was indeed posthumously converted to Mormonism by his family, despite the fact that when he was alive he regarded all religions as “hogwash.”

(Emphasis added.) My first thought on reading that was, “How does one describe the deceased father in-law of a presidential candidate as ‘militantly atheist’ based on anonymous sources?”

As John writes in another post below, the Gawker author was simply wrong. Today, Gawker was forced to correct its story in response to the following e-mail from Jim Davies, Ann Romney’s brother and Edward Davies’ son:

Mr. Denton,

I’m not sure about the law’s position on slander or libel vis a vis someone who is dead, but my father’s reputation matters a great deal to me, and your correspondent’s contention that my father was an atheist is blatantly false. I demand that the record be corrected and that you print a retraction. If you or someone would care to contact me on the issue I will be happy to give you the facts. Dad had faith in God, or a higher power, or something much bigger than himself, but saw organized religion as something man-made. Does that sound like a “committed atheist” or a “resolute atheist”? We had numerous conversations on the topic. I am truly astonished at the irresponsibility and callousness of your publication.

In addition to these inaccuracies, he worked on the Apollo program, not Gemini. There is so much conjecture and outright fantasy in these contentions, I am absolutely astonished. If I were this sloppy in my work as an ophthalmologist there is no way I could maintain a credible practice—or maintain a license to practice.

It is also beyond my comprehension (and I presume that you view your “Gawker” as a legitimate source for “news”) that your reporter would not even make the effort to make a phone call to confirm a story that is bound to get so much play in the media. Or, is it possible that you and yours are agenda-driven, and that your intent is to smear a candidate?

Mr. Cook, the author, seems quite defensive in his response:

My claim that [Edward Davies] was an atheist was based on the following:

• Earlier this month, the Telegraph reported that “Mr. Davies, who also served as mayor of the wealthy Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills, rebelled against his strict upbringing as a Welsh Congregationalist and became strongly opposed to all organized religion. ‘He would say: ‘I’m a scientist, show me the proof’,’ recalled [a former colleague].”
• In 2007, the Boston Globe quoted Edward’s son Roderick saying that “Dad considered people who were religious to be weak in the knees.” The Globe further reported that Edward had “absolutely no use for religion,” regarded it as “drudgery and hogwash,” and “insisted [that his wife] give up organized religion” before marrying her.

We will not belabor this further, except to note this: If these Telegraph and Globe reports are the evidence on which Mr. Cook relies, it is very difficult to see how he concludes that Edward Davies was “militantly atheist.” Agnostic, yes; but opposition to organized religion and a demand for scientific proof do not an atheist make. Maybe the type of writer who uses the term “voodoo” to describe the Mormon beliefs in question, as Mr. Cook also did in his Gawker piece, is also one who places a higher value on snarkiness than on fairness, accuracy, or decency. That seems to have been the case here.

John Says – A Mere Taste Of The Indecency To Come

Let’s look at just two paragraphs from the Gawker post, written before any corrections:

Of course this is all empty superstition, as Davies realized. Being dead, he wasn’t particularly in a place to care about whatever voodoo was performed in his name. But it’s an exceedingly odd way for the Romney family to honor the memory of a man who was committed, for his entire life, to the notion that organized religion is a fraud.

The Mormon church has repeatedly been criticized for its practice of trawling for dead souls to convert to the faith. Catholic and Jewish organizations have expressed outrage when the names of dead popes and Holocaust victims have turned up on Mormon lists of the baptized. In 1995, the church pledged to “discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews” except for direct descendents of living Mormons, tacitly acknowledging that its creepy and weird to claim the souls of people who had no interest in Mormonism for their own. It’s strange that the Romney and Davies families didn’t accord Edward Davies’ memory the same respect.

Consider the language in those paragraphs, “superstition,” “voodoo,” “odd way,” “trawling,” creepy,” “weird” and “strange.” These words lack simple respect.  Yesterday I talked about posthumous rituals bringing comfort to the survivors and said:

These stories stomp upon and ridicule a source of comfort to the still living members of the Davies clan.  There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, “Christian” about such an action.  These stories are simply inhumane.  Most of the Mormon stuff written in this and the last campaign was wrong, but that is politics.  This particular line of inquiry is simply shameful.

That is frankly the most important consideration, but this words are disrespectful of religion generally.  What makes Mormonism “voodoo” and Catholic infant baptism “generally accepted practice?”  Well, there are only three choices.  One, you’re, say, Catholic and find Mormonism heretical.  We’ll get back to this in a minute.  Two, you believe all religion to be “voodoo.” Fair enough, but that also says if you are one of the people in the first category, you should be defending the Mormons because your practice is, in the eyes of the second category, just as “weird” as theirs.  At a minimum a person of a faith that finds Mormonism errant should temper their vocabulary out of simple decency. (Looks like some Catholics agree with me.)

But the third reason a person might make a “voodoo” type judgment is simple political expediency.  Now, political attacks of that sort are an indiscriminate weapon – once fired they are going to hit everything that remotely resembles the target.  (Taking us back to the second category.)  Then there is the fact that we on the Republican side of the aisle are suckers if we fall for this – such divisions only weaken us.

It’s this last category that tells us the most important political takeaway form this incident – it’s foreshadowing.  Look for the Obamaites to unleash a barrage of this kind of disrespectful, indiscriminate, indecent, and personally harmful attack.

This is going to get really ugly.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

There are two ways to attack this issue.  The first is the issue of simply bad journalism.  This humble little blog discussed the matter directly with one of Edward Davies children.  Yet the mighty and vaunted Daily Mail of England could not be bothered?!  That indicates that clearly the story is about sensationalism, NOT about the Mormon practice nor what it means to the people involved.

Secondly, there is some really deep theology here – stuff most believers of any faith that practices baptism do not understand.  There is great disagreement amongst traditional Christians about the practice.  Why, Presbyterians like myself, and Catholics as well just to name a couple, dare baptize infants who have no more control over what is going on than the dead.  Where are the stories about that concerning say, Rick Santorum, who has our prayers this Sunday?  Clearly, the press is not interested in the issue, they are interested in making the Romney/Davies clan look strange.

Which brings me to my final point.  The death of a parent is a horrible thing.  I was holding my father’s hand as he breathed his last.  It is an extraordinary and very moving experience.  Such an experience is accompanied by a complex emotional stew that requires sincere expression.  What people do in the face of such circumstances is both highly personal and highly diverse.  Those of us of faith believe, even more hope, that our posthumous rituals can bring aid of some sort to those we have lost.  But all people, not just those of faith, have posthumous rituals of some form to bring comfort to the survivors.

These stories stomp upon and ridicule a source of comfort to the still living members of the Davies clan.  There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, “Christian” about such an action.  These stories are simply inhumane.  Most of the Mormon stuff written in this and the last campaign was wrong, but that is politics.  This particular line of inquiry is simply shameful.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

John McCain made some comments about what role it make have played in South Carolina.

“We haven’t had time to do a real analysis of the Romney race in South Carolina, but once we break that down, there was some element of anti-Mormonism in that vote,” McCain asserted. “I’m not saying all of it, but there were elements there. There was nothing that Mitt Romney could have done.”

Well gee Senator, why not just read this blog – we had that figured out last Monday morning.  Of course, the Aussies agree with us.  But as a lengthy CNN blog post notes, Evangelicals are quite different in different regions:

Conservative Christian activist Ralph Reed has called the Bible Belt home for decades, but he grew up in Miami in the 1970s, when the city was emerging as a diverse megalopolis.

Among his middle school friends were Jews, Catholics and Methodists.

Then, at age 15, Reed’s family relocated to the sleepy mountain town of Toccoa, Georgia, so his dad, a doctor, could take a better-paying job.

“It was very conservative,” says Reed, who now lives outside Atlanta. “At first – as would be true of any 15-year-old – I didn’t like it. I think it was a culture shock.”

Ultimately, the mostly evangelical residents of Toccoa shaped Reed’s faith, helping lead him to Jesus in his 20s. But in terms of his faith-based organizing, the well-known activist drew more on his experiences in hyper-diverse Miami.

“Later on in life, when I became a leader in the Christian Coalition, I had a greater appreciation [for] ethnic and religious diversification,” Reed says.

I am reminded of Lowell’s comments on how Utah Mormons are often quite different than Mormons in other parts of the country and especially in urban areas.  Had I a degree in sociology and political science it would be an interesting study to try and figure out if the whole divide is a urban/rural thing more than a religious thing, or if those things could even be separated?  Maybe its a three-way thing – rural Evangelicals-rural Mormons-urban people united in faith?  I don’t know, but it would be an interesting study.  Besides, I thought liberals ruled the urban areas?  They most certainly know how to get nasty on this point.

Remember our old “friend” at Slate, Jacob Weisberg with “the founding whoppers of Mormonism“?   Well, Slate is back with an explanation of Mormon belief concerning the afterlife, under the headline:

What’s Hell Like for Mormons?
No man on Earth can understand it.

No, there’s no snark there, none at all.  The sheer lack of respect such a headline conveys requires a Christian of any stripe to stand up and object.  I mean, even if I don’t agree with the Mormon view, mere civility – a Christian virtue – demands that I point out their lack of civility and defend the victims of it.

The general is not going to be any fun at all.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.