Article VI Blog

Some guy in Utah thinks Evangelicals will still be a problem for Romney in 2012.  It is not exactly a penetrating analysis and up until this week I would have been dismissive – but now I begin to wonder.  We alluded to the issue on Friday, but further discussion makes it worthy of deeper examination.

A little background – Romney’s religion will not overtly be a problem from the right side of the aisle in 2012.  Huckabee was too harshly chastised after he tried in Iowa last time for that to ever happen again.  As an overt issue on the right it was abandoned by New Hampshire.  Of course, on the left, all religion is an overt issue, but we are here concentrating on the primaries and specifically on Evangelicals.

However, chastising a prejudice does not necessarily eliminate it – it just forces it underground and into diferent guises.  Last time the “Mormons lie” meme fed the “flip-flop” charge which made Romney “inauthentic.”  We see the inauthenticity thing discussed a lot even now.  In the last week, a new discussion has arisen that could also develop as a guise for anti-Mormon sentiment amongst Evangelicals.

It starts with the a piece by Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru in NRO last week on American Exceptionalism.

What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.

[...]

To find the roots of American exceptionalism, you have to start at the beginning — or even before the beginning. They go back to our mother country. Historian Alan Macfarlane argues that England never had a peasantry in the way that other European countries did, or as extensive an established church, or as powerful a monarchy. English society thus had a more individualistic cast than the rest of Europe, which was centralized, hierarchical, and feudal by comparison.

It was, to simplify, the most individualistic elements of En­glish society — basically, dissenting low-church Protestants — who came to the eastern seaboard of North America. And the most liberal fringe of English political thought, the anti-court “country” Whigs and republican theorists such as James Harrington, came to predominate here. All of this made Amer­ica an outlier compared with England, which was an outlier compared with Europe. The U.S. was the spawn of English liberalism, fated to carry it out to its logical conclusion and become the most liberal polity ever known to man.

America was blessedly unencumbered by an ancien régime. Compared with Europe, it had no church hierarchy, no aristocracy, no entrenched economic interests, no ingrained distaste for commercial activity. It almost entirely lacked the hallmarks of a traditional post-feudal agrarian society. It was as close as you could get to John Locke’s state of nature. It was ruled from England, but lightly; Edmund Burke famously described English rule here as “salutary neglect.” Even before the Rev­olution, America was the freest country on earth.

These endowments made it possible for the Americans to have a revolution with an extraordinary element of continuity. Tocqueville may have been exaggerating when he said that Americans were able to enjoy the benefits of a revolution without really having one, but he wasn’t far off the mark. The remnants of old Europe that did exist here — state-supported churches, primogeniture, etc. — were quickly wiped out. Amer­icans took inherited English liberties, extended them, and made them into a creed open to all.

Exact renderings of the creed differ, but the basic outlines are clear enough. The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.

Good stuff this, so why is it problematic?  Well, first of all, I have to guess (we do not have pre-publication copies) that Mitt Romney’s soon to be released book, No Apology: The Case For American Greatness, is going to – with a title like that – in some way address similar ideas.  Secondly, our nation holds a very special place in Mormon thought, philosophy, and even theology.  Finally, since Lowry and Ponnuru’s piece, a number of leading Evangelical bloggers have been pointing out that American Exceptionalism is not a “Christian” ideal.

Matt Anderson objects to them “borrowing” religious language:

I am occasionally asked by folks how to help young evangelicals understand and sympathize with conservative political ideology.

Here’s a hint:

Don’t steal religious language to make the case for American exceptionalism, as Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru unfortunately do.

Ponnuru and Lowry’s piece is a tremendous example of the sort of one-eyed shut conservatism that has disenchanted many of my peers.  Their’s is a defense of the American creed, which they describe as a blend of “liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics.”

Samuel Goldman finds them imprecise:

But the most serious problem is conceptual. Lowry and Ponnuru don’t distinguish between two ideas, one of which can be called American exceptionalism, the other American exclusivism.

Doug Wilson finds the idea idolatrous:

American exceptionalism is objectionable because it is a false religion, a false faith. It is a smooth and attractive idol, and probably the idol most likely to ensnare conservative evangelicals.

Boy there is a lot of semantics going on here – and a lot of semantic territoriality.  That is troubling, we are so busy arguing words and their meanings, and who gets to decide their meanings, that we are losing the central idea.  This is very reflective of the common debate, theologically, between Evangelicals and Mormons.  Given that, one has to wonder if this debate will not continue in force when Romney’s book is in general release in a couple of weeks.

It is important in these types of situations to focus on the central ideas on which we can all agree, so that is what I am going to do here.  First of all, everyone understands that we can hold our nation in front of our God and that such is idolatrous.  The Mormons I know, even with their deep faith in the special place America has in history as ordained by God, know that America is NOT God.  Any person of faith must guard against idolatry of all sorts, and this sort is no exception.

So what are the essential ideas that we can focus on and can agree upon?  Well, first of all, it cannot be denied that the Unites States of America is the most successful nation-state in history.  We have grown faster and larger than any other.  It cannot be denied that while imperfect, we have done more good for our citizenry and the world than any prior nation-state.  It is also inarguable that the varied religious nature of our citizenry is, to some extent, responsible for that latter fact.

It also cannot be denied that religion, and especially Christianity, has flourished in American like no place else on earth – and like no other religion in history – as matter of choice and free practice.

For Evangelicals, and those like us, who believe that God acts in history, we must conclude that God, to some extent, has ordained this special place in history that America has obtained.  This is a matter of reason.  It is fair for Evangelicals to say that American Exceptionalism is not biblical (and here the different canons of Orthodox and Mormon Christians is very important), but to say it is ungodly is to deny history and that God acts in it.  We can no more deny the exceptional nature of this nation than we can deny that the earth rotates around the sun (but then we did try to do that for a while as well.)

So argue the precise formulations of the statements if you will, but let us not lose focus on what really matters.  America is unique in history.  It will not last forever, but it is destined to have influence far beyond its existence.  Only Israel and the Roman Empire can claim the kind of historical significance that the United States is likely to claim when it is all said and done.  That uniqueness is worthy of our defense, and it is defending it that should unite us.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Political Strategy, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lowell chiming in . . .

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Just this morning, an op-ed by Mitt Romney started making the rounds.  It’s about standing firm with our allies, especially Israel.  It is a marvelous piece and very much speaks for itself.  There is just one brief comment I want to make.  Consider these pull quotes:

Keeping our word to our allies is a matter of honor, but it is also a matter of self-interest. The United States needs allies for economic, political and national security reasons. Good allies and strong alliances allow us to share the burdens we carry, complement and supplement our efforts and present a united front against those who wish us harm.

[...]

Whenever or wherever America steps away from one of its friends and allies, or shrinks in the face of belligerent tyrants, those who are allied with us may understandably or inevitably step closer to our foes. The advance of human rights and the defense of liberty demand that America stands firm with its allies — all of them.

Note that Romney stands in defense of the promise of our nation as matter of honor.

I am currently hip deep in writing the next installment of our Telling the Story series on the narrative of religion and Romney in Campaign ‘08.  In that forthcoming piece we will be looking at the “Mormons lie” meme, and how it transmogrified into the whole flip-flop thing, which one study showed was simply code for religious bias.  When a man stands behind the word of our nation in this fashion, how can we accuse him of being disingenuous?

Unlike the current administration for which there is no intellectual/philosophical bedrock, and therefore no meter by which to measure such honor – Romney clearly understands the importance of one’s “yes” being “yes” and “no” meaning “no.”

So much for “Mormons lie,” “flip-flop,” or any other formulation of that apparent mistrust.  If you have a problem with Romney’s faith, face and deal with it – but do not hide it behind things that are simply untrue.

BTW, be sure and read the whole thing.  It is vitally important for reasons far beyond the point I have made here.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

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

So what is the controversy all about?

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

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

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

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

The Key Points of The Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We couldn’t have said that better ourselves.

The Upshot

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

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

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

John adds his thoughts:

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

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

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

Sphere: Related Content

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