Article VI Blog

Gary Bauer, yes that Gary Bauer – the one that had a prominent place in the post -Iowa “Stop Romney” meetings, wrote an interesting piece for Human Events:

President Obama has a unique capacity to draw the media’s attention away from the serious and significant and toward the trivial and tedious—which is exactly what he will need to do to win a second term.

[...]

We know there’s more to come. Already the media are exploring Romney’s Mormon faith with a vigor it couldn’t summon when news of Obama’s controversial church first arose. Mormon Republican Senator Orrin Hatch recently predicted that the Obama campaign will “throw the Mormon Church at [Romney] like you can’t believe.”

The campaign insists it won’t make Romney’s faith an issue. But it may not have to, if all its media allies do. Numerous liberal pundits have mocked Romney’s Mormonism. Earlier this month, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell bashed the faith as the creation of “a guy …who got caught having sex with the maid…”

The politics of distraction is all Obama has left after more than three years of broken promises, failed initiatives and deeply unpopular “accomplishments.”

Instapundit reacted to Martin Bashir’s nastiness from last week with but a sentence:

Hate and bigotry is all they’ve got left.

Funny how a plan comes together when you’re the nominee.  Sometimes the distractions are just silly, most notably in the NYTimes who is writing about Romney’s lack of vice or a story about visiting the Mormon History Museum in SLC – predicated by the Romney candidacy.

Montana’s Schweitzer continues to reverberate – all the way to the UK.  Schweitzer is the most serious of the “ring the Mormon bell” distractions to date.  Some question arise.  Of Romney voters, likely and independent, how many will be affected by the mention of Mormon?  How many will be genuinely distracted by it?  (The press, of course will be serious distracted.)  More importantly, what’s in this deal for Schweitzer?  After being so roundly chastised by the Team Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, can the guy have a political future?

Way to early to know the answers here, but interesting questions are they not?  In closing, Powerline’s Steven Hayward points out one weapon the Dems have sacrificed:

A number of analysts and commentators have noted that since Romney sewed up the GOP nomination recently, the Obama machine has changed tactics.  Where they once attacked him as a flip-flopper–one of the most potent ways to undermine any candidacy–and as a quasi-liberal for his support of the Massachusetts version of Obamacare, they now attack him as a right-winger and agent of the 1 percent.

Wha?! Who flip-flopped here?  Have a great Monday!

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

In 2008 Evangelicals spoiled Mitt Romney’s primary run.  The results were disastrous for the party, but the spoilage was real.  Evangelicals have been unable to pull off a similar spoil in 2012.  To some extent that indicates a realignment in the party, but more importantly I think it represents a realignment inside Evangelicals.  Some people are going to like this and some are not.

Those who wanted little else than to once again play spoiler have to be among those that don’t care much for the realignment.  Among that bunch I am quite certain we can count the once consequential, yet still media omnipresent Eric Erickson of RedState.  Let’s face it, the MSM is going to keep the unhappy Republican around forever, it helps the Dems and it paints Republicans as a caricature.

Yesterday Erickson took to RedState to “warn” Romney that he better cozy up to Evangelicals.  We’ve heard this song before.  The piece by Erickson begins reasonably enough quoting some interesting statistics from Ben Domenech, but then it descends into presumption, hyperbole, and near fantasy.

Today, Chuck Colson died. Mr. Colson and I have both been involved with the same evangelical groups, including that group that threw its support to Santorum. Due to his health, I don’t think he really participated that much publicly or in meetings, but his spirit was there. He was mentioned several times by his friends who met in Texas. I was in that room. Those who threw their support behind Rick Santorum were his friends, compatriots, and kindred spirits. Chuck Colson was a most consequential figure in evangelical circles and within the Republican Party.

Oh, so Colson, who endorsed no one, was opposed to Romney and pro-Santorum?  I don’t think so.  Lowell tweeted Erickson who responded:

It’s an objectively accurate point though and I’m not going to shy away from making it.

Aside from the last sentence, that paragraph just quoted consists almost entirely of assumption and innuendo.  So where does Erickson go with this fantasy?  Well, he examines the statements of Mike Pence, John Boehner, and Mitt Romney on the death of Chuck Colson (Our prayers are with his family and friends!) and concludes:

As several people noted on twitter, that might be the only statement released today that didn’t mention God, Christ, or Christianity. But that’s the minor issue. The major issue is two sentences. It may seem a trivial thing, but for a group already presuming they’ll be taken for granted and not really valued, it is a real problem.

This evening an email exchange between a number of evangelicals on this very topic left a lot of them more certain than ever that Mitt Romney just expects their vote. He may get it, but not their passion or energy. That is the real problem for him. People used to witnesses won’t be for him.

My goodness, that’s quite the conclusion.

Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate for the President of the United States.  When was the last time a POTUS spoke about “Christ and Christianity” in a formal public statement?  Consider the text to George W. Bush’s National Cathedral address after 9-11.   Evangelical hero Bush mentions only the generic “God” of our shared civil religion.

I’ve already spent more time refuting this thing than it deserves – there is a broader point to be made here.  It is interesting that the MSM is accusing Romney of pandering to Evangelicals by playing the victim card.  Erickson is certainly playing the victim card here, playing on sympathy for  the death of a good man and an important leader.  Whether Romney is or not is a debate for another time.

The important question is, “Do Evangelicals want to be known as victims?”  This Evangelical most certainly does not.  The phrase “victory in Christ” keeps popping into my head.  So how do we not be victims?

Well, sitting on the sidelines and crying “foul” is no way to win.  At this point we join the Romney parade and we do the best job possible to represent ourselves and the things that are important to us.  We know for fact that Obama will harm the things that are important to us.  Voting is not enough, it is certainly not enough to make sure that our voice is heard in a Romney administration.  There are lots of voters, but far fewer that work hard on the campaign.  Money matters as much as activism.

One other thing – if we want to hear our president talk about “Christ and Christianity,” then our nation needs to be a bit less pluralistic – the president is, after all, the president of the entire nation, not just us.  That is an issue that will not be resolved in the political arena, but on the evangelism and mission fields.  So get busy.

Lowell adds . . .

I was a recent high school graduate and paying attention when Watergate unfolded, so for my entire adult life I have had a chance to watch Charles Colson become the disciple of Christ that he was by the time of his death. At first I was skeptical, as many others were. But my doubts soon gave way to true admiration for the man Chuck Colson became. Above all, his generosity of spirit impressed and inspired. When I think of the words “I was in prison, and ye visited me,” Chuck Colson’s face comes to mind. He will be missed, but the deep imprint he left on American life will remain.

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

You are going to read, and if you are reading hard have already read, lots of stuff about religion in the general election now upon us.  Most of it does not matter.

For example, the religious label you choose to apply to each candidate will not matter in the end.  How you report about it will.  For example, the same man, in two separate interviews about faith seems to say Romney has a faith problem and he does not.  Of course, we do not know what questions were asked and what part of the interviews was not discussed in the two pieces.  What we do know if we read carefully is that whatever faith problem exists, it is more about the press than the electorate.  Don’t just read the headlines and the ledes, read what Richard Land is actually saying.

It’s not about those few remaining people that claim they still have a problem with Romney.  Sore losers are sore losers.  It’s not about “Mormon moments” and JFK.  In the end, Catholic life was unchanged after JFK was elected, sure there was a psychological uplift, but what it meant to be a Catholic and Catholic life in general was far more changed by Vatican II at roughly the same time than it was by an election for POTUS.

It may have far more to do with race than anyone in the country is willing to admit, but not is the way most people would have us think.  The problem is not what the LDS church believed or said 30-40 years ago, the problem is race will be used as a club, if not heavy artillery.  Things that happened before a good deal of the electorate was born will be used to raise guilt, if not wielded as direct reverse-racism.  And that brings me to the real issue.

Karl Rove in this mornings WSJ:

Rick Santorum’s decision Tuesday to suspend his campaign effectively ends the GOP nomination fight. But it doesn’t mark the start of the general election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. That contest has long been under way. Mr. Obama’s speech to the Associated Press last week and two appearances in Florida on Tuesday provide a glimpse of the low road the president and his campaign likely will take.

He will distort beyond recognition his opponent’s arguments. For example, he explained to news executives at the AP that Republicans want to “convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts—especially for the wealthy.” Actually, no one has suggested that.

No honest differences are possible with Mr. Obama. He will impugn the motives of any who disagree with him. As he told the AP, his opponents want to “let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity.” His agenda “isn’t a partisan feeling . . . [it]isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.” To disagree with him is unpatriotic. That’s to be expected from Republicans, whom Mr. Obama says stand for “thinly veiled social Darwinism . . . [that is] antithetical to our entire history.”

Mr. Obama will build entire edifices on top of one fake premise, all dressed up in one big phony assumption.

Distortions…falsehoods…outright lies, this is the stuff of the Obama campaign.  Yesterday already saw an attempt not merely to argue, but to impugn the lifestyle of millions of American women.  This stuff will be personal, nasty, ugly, and angering.  It’s all part of “the Chicago way:”

The question facing those of us of faith is how do we respond?  If we take our faith seriously, whatever particularly brand it may be, we simply cannot crawl in the gutter with Obama.  That does not mean we are not strong, we are in fact stronger.   When he pulls a knife, we do pull a gun but we do so not in anger or revenge instead with purpose and intent.

We do not lie, we stick to the facts.  There is no need to engage in personal vindictive nor impugn the character of our opponent.  The facts speak for themselves.  We may have to shout to gain attention, but once we have that attention we return to a reasonable tone of voice.

We occupy the moral high ground and we cannot be driven from it by lies, innuendo and gutter tactics – we can only concede it by resorting to same.  We face a terrible battle, and we will have to fight very, very hard.  In this battle we will wound many of our opposition; such is not a sin.  But if we do so to be vindictive, if we resort to lies, then our opponent, though wounded will have won the exchange.

The campaign ahead will be a test of our faith.  To some extent it will be a test of our faith in the public square.  But more importantly it will be a test of our personal faith.  It will be the kind of test that will build our character to new heights if we submit to it.  It is going to be an interesting seven or eight months.

They can also be a fruitful months on many levels.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

On NBC’s Easter Sunday edition of Meet the Press there was an extended discussion of the role of religion in the 2012 presidential election cycle.  Here’s the transcript of the April 8 program. Participants were:

• Democratic Congressman of Missouri and United Methodist Pastor Emanuel Cleaver
• Daughter of the Reverend Billy Graham, Anne Graham Lotz
• Bishop William Lori, archbishop designate of Baltimore
• Jon Meacham, executive editor of Random House and author of American Gospel, God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation
• Raul Labrador, Republican Congressman Idaho and “a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church.”

Of course The Question came up. The key transcript excerpts, with emphasis language bolded:

DAVID GREGORY:

All right. I’m gonna come back to this expectation of faith and– and– among our leaders in a moment. But Congressman Labrador, let me get you into this. We– we are on the precipice of– of an historic moment– for Mormons in this country. And that is that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. And somebody was– you know, very significant role in the church looks like he’s going to become the republican nominee.

And– Congress Cleaver talked about the need to take religion off the ballot. But here you had Orrin Hatch from Utah– Senator Utah– saying that the Obama administration– the campaign is gonna throw the Mormon Church at Mitt Romney and make this an issue. Do you agree with that and how would he do that?

REP. RAUL LABRADOR:

I think the media is gonna do that– for– for the Obama campaign…. everyone in– in politics is gonna have some sort of role– i– is gonna be influenced by their faith whether it’s Emanuel by his faith, whether it’s me by my faith. And I think we can’t talk about having– s– politics void of any religious faith because then what you’re saying is you have– you’re asking people to not be who they are.

DAVID GREGORY:

But I’m asking you about this very specific charge. You have the– senior Senator from Utah saying that the Mormon Church is gonna be thrown at the republican nominee who is a Mormon. In what way? And you just said you think the media’ll do it. I mean, let’s talk–

(OVERTALK)

DAVID GREGORY:

–about what– what you mean.

REP. RAUL LABRADOR:

–you– you look at your own network. MSNBC, you have Lawrence O’Donnell, it’s– just saying some really nasty things about the Mormon religion, about the founding– of– of our religion. That it was based on– on some guy just waking up some morning and deciding that he– that he wanted– that he had– an extramarital affair and that– that– that’s how the r– religion was founded.

There– there’s some really nasty things already being said by– by your own network, by NBC. There’s– there’s many other people that are gonna be talking about these things. And … what we need to realize is that everybody’s faith origins are– are peculiar i– if you look at any one of– of– of us.

And we need to realize that what you need to look at is the man– the man, Mitt Romney. I have endorsed Mitt Romney. But it clearly looks like he’s gonna be the nominee– for– for the republican party. We need to look at his life and the things that he has done. And he’s had– a very, very good life….

DAVID GREGORY:

All right, but you– you’re arguing– Archbishop [William Lori], you’re arguing still this issue of contraception and the Obama administration’s rule which they, of course, would argue w– there’s an exception provided for and an accommodation– provided for that the insurance would pay for it directly.

But rather than go down that road which I– I don’t think will convince you, I wanna stay on this sort of broader question– Congressman Cleaver, which is in the case of Mitt Romney– but more generally, about someone’s faith– as a person of faith that Romney is and as a Mormon, it’s the core of who he is.

As a missionary for two years, as somebody who was a bishop in the church which is the– correct me Congressman, I’m wrong– the equivalent of being– a priest because it’s lay-led. Very close association with the church. He doesn’t really talk about what guides him so powerfully. Isn’t it fair for both scrutiny, questions– because there’s so much ignorance about the Mormon faith– but also to understand the man, to understand his religious journey.

REP. EMANUEL CLEAVER:

Well– look, I– I think all of us– who claims some kinda connection to religion– and– and if we are in government, we are informed by that region. And we are in many instances regulated by it. We don’t have to make an announcement– every day and– and– and go out and wave a flag.

It comes out of our (UNINTEL). And, you know– but I have to talk about it. When I was Mayor of Kansas City we had– a– our church opposed– the Methodist Church opposed gaming. I said from the very beginning if– if I’m going to do what my church says, then I shoulda campaigned on the Me– as– as a Methodist running for– for mayor. I did not.

And so therefore– I– eventually signed– that into law. I– I’m– I’m not gonna vote for– Governor Romney. But I am more concerned about– Washington’s religion of confusionism than I am Governor Romney’s religion about the– Mormonism. So I– I– I think w– we gotta stop this. It’s not healthy for the nation. We’ve com– completely forgotten article six, paragraph three– which says there shall be no religious test. And I think we got to try to prevent our country from doing that (FOREIGN LANGUAGE NOT TRANSCRIBED)–

(OVERTALK)

DAVID GREGORY:

I understand that. But we live in the real world here. And evangelicals– which you are one– are deeply suspicious of Mormons and the Mormon faith and do not consider them to be Christian. To– you– you– and you have– p– the– the likelihood now of a Mormon republican nominee– is there not an opportunity for more national understanding and more of a discussion about the Mormon faith when you have the standard bearer of one of our two major political parties of that shape?

ANNE GRAHAM LOTZ:

I– I– there will be. But– but when you just– addressed him and said that out of your deep conviction, you know, that– that what drives him– what’s the powerful force that drives him, then I think you can learn by seeing what he has done, through his policies, his decision and– and how he has conducted his life.

So that’s some– you can learn from that something of how his religion drives him. And I think rather than discussing all the religion– and I’m not into religion. And I– I know that will be a discussion. And I would look to talk about Easter morning at some point this morning because this is our day. And– but– but your– your religion i– puts on the– the table is the policies.

You know, the– the f– the decisions, what’s– the– the social pol– the– driving this nation right now. So I think it’s not the discussion of religion is almost a smoke screen and a diversion from the real issue. And that’s the policies. And there’s a clearer choice I think this fall between the way the nation’s going to be led. And that’s what I think we ought to be looking at. Not so much as– as– as at the religions preference of a particular person.

DAVID GREGORY:

President– President Kennedy– even though is a speech that causes Senator Santorum– stomach problems– in 1960 gave a marvelous statement of this– on exactly this point, that he was not the Catholic candidate for president, he was the democratic candidate for president.

And voters can make a judgment on the whole person, the whole policy. But I don’t think to the Congressman’s point– I don’t think we want presidents sitting around discussing subs– substitutionary atonement. You know, we don’t want people– I think– discussing– there’s enough for presidents to do without having them worrying about the theologies of different religions.

REP. RAUL LABRADOR:

And– and the reality is that religion informs your thinking. But l– look at– in the United States right now, Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid are both member of the LDS faith. You can’t find any two more opposite individuals. So even though it’s gonna inform who you are– and they’re both faithful members of the church.

So you can– can’t find any two more opposite people, two people who have different– philosophies and– and political doctrines. So I think w– we– it’s important to know a little bit about Mitt Romney and his religion. But I think it’s more important– I– like I said before, I have not endorsed Mitt Romney. I have not decided– I– I’m not gonna go out and endorse him. But I think he’s gonna be the candidate. And I do believe it’s time for republicans to get around– to get behind him because we know he’s gonna be a candidate. It’s time to beat Obama.

DAVID GREGORY:

But Congressman, let me–

REP. RAUL LABRADOR:

But–

DAVID GREGORY:

–ask you one more about your specific faith. And I wanna show you a poll done by Quinnipiac– over the summer. Would you feel uncomfortable with a Mormon president– the number of republicans 29% say yes. Democrats 46%. I– I come back to this question–

(OVERTALK)

REP. RAUL LABRADOR:

–the most biased people are the democrats.

DAVID GREGORY:

Advertise | AdChoices

–well, I mean, that poll is– is– but– but it– but let me ask you that. I mean, I– unlike Christianity– a lot of people say the difficulty that– that Mormons have is that the– the– the religion is relatively new and therefore– for critics can be debunked more easily or attempted to be debunked– is there room for Governor Romney to take some of these issues on? Not to– get engaged in a doctrinaire discussion of the Mormon faith– but to take some of these issues on because there are questions and there are– there is discomfort?

REP. RAUL LABRADOR:

Well, he should talk about who he is and– and– and what formed him. And I think he discusses missionary work. I was a missionary for two years in South America. My son– my oldest son is now a missionary in South America. It’s one of the most formative things that you can do in your life.

It– it– it– it informs who you are for the rest of your life. I think he could talk about that. He could relate to the people that he has t– taught as– a– as a bishop. He was a bishop and a stake (?) president in the church which means that he actually dealt with a lot of different issues dealing with poverty and other issues. He should talk about that a little bit more. But if you want– I mean, you shouldn’t be getting into the theology because there’s– th– every church has a different dogma, a different– teaching. And we’re not– you– we shouldn’t be judging a– as Emanuel just said– we shouldn’t be judging. Our constitution tells us that we shouldn’t be having religious tests.

(OVERTALK)

DAVID GREGORY:

Right. Let me take a quick break here. We’ll continue this discussion on the other side of it. More from our round table on this Easter morning discussion after this.

Thanks Lowell!

…For researching that conversation.  There are a couple of notables and they have to do mostly with David Gregory.  Firstly, when Congressman Labrador challenges Gregory on Lawrence O’Donnell’s nasty bigotry (see the video here) – broadcast on a network affiliated with Gregory’s own, Gregory is completely unresponsive.  Not even a dismissive, “Well, that’s Larry, he’s a little, you know….”  Are we supposed to take this as a sign that NBC will tolerate such bigotry on their networks?  The lack of any ramifications for O’Donnell to date would indicate as such.

But that is not the major point I want to make in this post.  Glen Johnson at the Boston Globe picked up on the big issue:

Representative Raul Labrador of Idaho predicted Sunday that the press would make Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith a major issue in the Republican front-runner’s expected general election contest with President Obama.

Romney’s religion was on the table Easter Sunday during religion-themed political talk shows, including NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where Labrador was a guest.

Such is evident in the conversation itself, David Gregory just keep insisting and insisting, despite his panelists protests.  We linked yesterday to a Carl Cannon piece at RealClearReligion taking Gregory to task for some his saying that Romney was “afraid” to talk about his faith on Leno in a promotional appearance before the weekend.  Clearly Gregory went into Sunday’s show intending to force the issue.

Bear in mind, we just spent a good portion of yesterday afternoon arguing with some guy at Salon who was attempting to justify mockery of Romney’s faith.

Then there was this piece that appeared on RealClearReligion yesterday afternoon:

Now that the GOP presidential campaign is pivoting from internal competition to the race for November, it is past time for Mitt Romney to address relevant questions about his religion.

[...]

Romney should now be prepared to answer some questions that he has thus far deflected or ignored. Just last week, he was attacked by a guy at a town hall meeting about a racist but now-reversed aspect of Mormon theology. (Until 1978, blacks could not be ordained into the Mormon priesthood and interracial marriages were discouraged.) Romney cut him off.

Later he said: “This gentleman wanted to talk about the doctrines of my religion. I’ll talk about the practices of my faith.”

Which is almost fair enough. The “almost” is about those doctrines that deal with aspects of worldly life in which the government may have some role. How have those doctrines helped shape (or not) Romney’s policy positions on such matters?

As a parallel example, see: “Catholic Church” and “contraception, abortion and birth control.” Rick Santorum, famously a Catholic, has made the nexus of his faith and his policy positions pretty clear — both the influences and the limits of how doctrine has shaped his politics.

What utter nonsense!  Again, as we saw yesterday, Santorum making stands based on his faith does not mean that every candidate must answer for their individual faiths.  The author of the RCR piece, Jeffrey Weiss, then goes on to list seven questions Romney should answer about Mormonism.  The thing is downright McCarthyite – “Do you believe that the proletariat controls the means of production? – Are you a communist sir!?” – Relax Mr. Weiss, Romney’s stance on every one of the issues you raise is public information.  No candidate in history has been asked to trace their stance on an issue to their religious convictions, and to do so simply tramples on any reasonable understanding of not just religious freedom, but freedom generally.  There is nothing legitimate in this line of thought – it’s disgusting.

But what we do see in the preamble to Weiss’s disgusting inquiries is yet another attempt by the press to justify asking about, researching, and discussing Romney’s religion.  That is three times in 24 hours that the press has whined and whined about wanting an opportunity to discuss Mormonism.

Is it just because they are pro-Obama?  That the media are pro-Obama cannot be doubted.  But I wonder if it is not a bit deeper.  On one of the other Sunday shows, Face the Nation, Cardinal Dolan appeared:

In an interview on CBS Sunday, Cardinal Dolan called the Obama administration’s mandate on contraceptive coverage a “radical intrusion of a government bureaucracy.” He continued, saying, “Our problem is the government is intruding into the life of faith and in the church that they shouldn’t be doing.”

The press’ desire to discuss Romney’s religion is in support not just of Obama, but of his “signature achievement,” which disguised as healthcare reform, puts the government intrusively into our worship centers.  Obama may have put the camel’s nose in the tent, but the press is clearly the rest of the camel.

In yesterday’s argument, our opposite number made it apparent that  Mormonism is not specifically at issue other than as a stand in for all “silly” religion.  There is far more at stake than just the next presidential election – perhaps the most important in my lifetime.  Certainly reasonable respect for religion, if not religious freedom itself is at stake.  It seems plain that our understanding of ourselves as a nation is in play here – something very fundamental.

I, for one, like the America I have grown up in.

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

Let’s set the stage a bit here.

1) I checked in recently at our Sitemeter and the reader count was spinning like we’d been “Instalanched.”  (A now old term referring to what happened to a blogger when Glenn Reynolds linked to them.)  Turns out it was not Glenn, it was – get this – Andrew Sullivan who linked and partially quoted this piece that links to us.

2) John Derbyshire was fired by National Review over the weekend.  He wrote a piece for another outlet that is almost universally, here included, believed to be racist.

With those facts in play – let’s get to the meat.  We are linked by Alex Pareene @ Salon who is responding to Kevin Williamson’s cover piece at National Review on Mormons.

Pareene is attempting to make the case that not all references to Mormons are bigotry.  He agrees with us that Lawrence O’Donnell was a bigot last week, but then says, linking to us:

The “MSNBC is bigoted against Mormons” meme is spreading far and wide, though the real, full-throated defense of Mormonism on the right (which I am willing to bet money will frequently involve Evangelicals who have a history of Mormon-bashing) won’t really get going until the general election campaign begins in earnest.

The post of ours that he links to cites O’Donnell and makes reference to some comments by Joe Klein from earlier in the day.  At no point do we make a case that “MSNBC” is bigoted against Mormons, the only time the word “bigot” is used on our piece is a quote of a Kevin Williamson tweet, and that is directed at Lawrence O’Donnell specifically not MSNBC.  So why he links to us as spreading that meme I have no idea.

But here is the real point of our post that he links to:

We cannot take this bait.  These kinds of assaults – the “weirdness” of proxy baptism, polygamy as a justification for illicit sex – may have some appeal if you think Mormonism a “false” religion.  But here is the thing.  In a religiously pluralistic society like ours, if it stands against them, something similar will stand against us.  For example, there is the old canard that has floated in back rooms for years that Jesus wasn’t celibate, he was gay.  Let’s say for a minute that Larry O’Donnell passed that one off – I don’t think we’d sit still for it for very long.  Now, Mormons don’t equate Joseph Smith with Christ, so don’t lay that on me – but they do revere him and O’Donnell has gravely insulted them.

These attacks by Klein and O’Donnell are no different really than Obama’s attempts to force contraceptive insurance coverage down the throats of our Catholic friends.  They are straightforward attempts to stifle, control, and limit the religious voice.  We cannot stand for it – we must in fact unite against it.

On this point, Pareene seems to agree with us:

Williamson’s larger point, when he is not hunting down bigots, is that many religions have founders or transformational figures with sketchy biographies, most religions have doctrines that seem absurd when taken out of context or strictly literally, and not all followers of a religion believe in the same way. Which, duh! I agree: Most religions were founded by lunatics, liars, con men and worse, and many of them preached or still preach racism, homophobia and misogyny, and so none of them should be declared off-limits for mockery and criticism. Michele Bachmann’s Lutheran church believes insane things.

To a secular liberal, it’s funny to watch, say, an Evangelical pastor mock Mormonism, because both churches seem to hold equally silly beliefs. Non-Mormon Christians at least don’t have to suffer the indignity of their odd tenets of faith (Abraham lived to be 175?) having been created very recently, but it is certainly relevant to me if a politician believes we’re living in the End Times or not. And if they do, I shall feel free to mock, because that is stupid and dangerous.

And there you have it – our point reinforced directly.  What is interesting is the use of same to justify mockery.  “It’s OK to make fun of stupid, i.e. religious, people because they are, well, stupid.”  And this is what brings me back to the Derb firing.

As I said, Derb’s piece is universally, including by this blog, considered racist – that does not; however, change the fact that it is based on facts and statistics.  The reason it is racist is because statistical realities notwithstanding, we treat each person as an individual and to define one person by the statistical norms of their group will result in robbing the specific individual of some of their rights and courtesies.  Why cannot the same be said from persons of faith and specifically Mormons?  Says Pareene:

Religion is already a bit of a gray area, because it obviously affects a person’s political choices much more fundamentally than, say, being divorced or a cancer survivor or any number of other biographical details that pundits and journalists instinctively dismiss as irrelevant when it comes to picking a president. Rick Santorum’s conservative Catholicism practically defines him as a candidate, so it is “appropriate” to note and criticize his religious practices.

OK, first of all note that he is arguing with Santorum, not Romney, in this paragraph.  Sanotrum’s religion is indeed more fair game than Romney because Santorum has run on it – Santorum, as an individual, has put it at issue.  Romney has NOT put his religion at issue.   That is precisely the point that Romney made during and in the aftermath of his questioning by a Ron Paul supporter last week.

And now to the broader point – the effect that religion has on a person’s political choices is as diverse as possible.  No single individual can fully be measured or predicted by their faith.  There are people in the church I attend that are the precise political polar opposite of myself.  They attend the same services, listen to the same sermons, pray the same prayers, and ascribe to the same statements of belief that I do, but politically we agree on nothing.

To generalize about a religion, even if the generalization is true as generalizations go, and use that generalization to categorize and describe an individual is to be guilty of PRECISELY the same thing that John Derbyshire was.  Further to use those generalizations not merely as facts about an individual, but as a means for mockery is to heap disrespect and even scorn on the individual in question.   It is no more a joke than the one about the bridge over the Sahara desert.  (If you have not heard it, I’m not telling.)

But then I guess since I am just a “silly,” believing Presbyterian, this can all be discounted.  I would ask Mr. Pareene to note that I did the courtesy of arguing with him and did not merely dismiss nor mock him.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

A little over four years ago, just days after an earlier infamous Lawrence O’Donnell rant against Mormonism (eye-popping video here), Hugh Hewitt interviewed O’Donnell on Hugh’s show. The full transcript is here. This exchange is priceless:

HH: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

LO’D: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.

HH: Well, that’s candid.

LO’D: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HH: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

LO’D: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

HH: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.

LO’D: I agree.

HH: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.

This tells all of us a lot about Mr. O’Donnell and perhaps about his fellows among the left-of-center MSM. I am sure we haven’t seen the last of this — far from it — but maybe the denunciations will be sufficiently swift and significant that we can at least keep such vile attacks down at a dull roar.

Posted in News Media Bias, Religious Bigotry | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post