Simply put, some choices are a matter of simple preference, or taste, and some choices need more careful consideration.  My issue with weight control means that I cannot make my dining selection based on what I prefer, but rather I must make them based on what can allow me to sustain my weight both physically and psychologically.  Thus while I would greatly prefer an almost immeasurable array of things to one of those boxes for my evening meal, its ease of preparation (keeping me out of the kitchen which always leads to snacking) and controlled portions (meaning I can eat everything I see and not have overeaten in the process) makes it the meal of choice for me.

The Wall Street Journal recently wrote on the impending IPO of Facebook and carried on at great length about the marketing value of the “Like” button.  “Like” at Facebook is a simple thing – it is a statement of preference.  Increasingly the force of marketing tempts us to invest in our preferences rather than in what reason and circumstances say we should.  How many people are overextended on credit cards, not because they are out of work and used them to get by, but because they simply overbought?

Don’t get me wrong, following your taste or preference is harmless within certain constraints.  It’s a great way to decide what to watch on TV tonight, provided your tastes do not run to the obscene – in which case you have with television the same kind of issues I have with food.   But there are some decisions that simply demand we set our preferences aside, or at least deeply subordinate them, in favor of our reason and a sober assessment of circumstances.

Buying a house would be one example.  Before I can even begin to concern myself with things like style and floor plan, I must seriously look at costs and financing.  Once I have determined the price I can afford then I can use matters of taste to differentiate amongst the available houses in that range.  If my “dream house” costs more than I can afford it must stay a dream.

This same principle holds when it comes to our political decisions.  I was deeply struck a few days ago by a NRO piece by Wesley J. Smith:

When Pliny the Younger was a provincial governor in the Roman Empire, he wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking whether he should execute Christians who refused to burn incense in worship of the emperor. Pliny, in keeping with the customs of the empire, did not care about forcing Christians to believe that the emperor was a god. But in public they had to behave as if they did. Thus, the Christians were in the dock not so much because of their faith in a risen Christ as over their willful refusal to declare themselves part of the reigning social order.

I thought of Pliny when I read that the Obama administration, in creating specific rules to implement Obamacare, will require all employers (with a very narrow exemption discussed below) to offer their employees health insurance that provides FDA-approved contraception, female sterilization, and other “reproductive” services free of charge — even if the employer is a religious organization and doing so violates its doctrine. I also recalled the times that President Obama and other members of his administration have supported “freedom of worship.” However, as in Pliny’s time, “freedom of worship” is not the same thing as “freedom of religion.” The former means that one may believe whatever one wants and worship privately without interference, whereas the latter allows one freedom to live in the world at large consistent with one’s faith tenets, even if they are not endorsed by the state.

That distinction between religion and worship is an extraordinary observation.  Smith goes on about its political consequences and Roman Catholic concerns, but it is deeper than that still.  It is particularly pertinent to Evangelicals, and even Protestant Christianity generally.  Within these circles there is something called the “Worship Wars.”  Google the term and you will be amazed how much discussion there is about it.  Essentially the battle is between organ music dominant liturgical forms of worship and “modern” guitar music dominated “freer” forms of worship.  Much of the fight centers on matters of taste in music and other forms of religious expression.  But in the fight people often neglect that there are consequences that go far beyond simple matters of taste.

One of the outfalls of this “inside baseball” battle has been that many, many people have come to confuse “worship” with Church.  This is something I could go on about until well past the time your interest waned completely, but let’s focus on the fact that this confusion has deep political consequences.  Smith’s piece looks at some of the consequences on a policy level, but I want to examine it on a retail politics level.  Obama is flat out betting on the fact that most people are stuck in this confusion and cannot tell the difference between worship and religion – or more directly they simply think worship IS religion.

How else could Obama allow the abysmal ruling vis-a-vie forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance that provides for medical services antithetical to church teaching and come out just a few days later and at the National Prayer Breakfast sound just like a preacher?  There are many, many theological, policy and hermeneutical nits to pick with the president’s prayer breakfast speech, but I just want to focus on the incredible chutzpah  (to borrow a term from yet another religious group) of such seemingly diametrically opposed actions.

But for those actions to be diametrically opposed, religion has to be a matter of more than taste.  Yet as the “worship wars” indicate, for thousands and thousands of Americans religion is little more than a matter of taste.

When I started thinking about this whole “taste and thought” thing I was going to write about it in response to all the people I have heard on talk radio and elsewhere in the last several weeks talking about how Gingrich resonated with them and expressed their feelings (a matter more or less of taste) and they simply did not care about the reality of the politics on the ground (a matter of thought.)  That still applies, but this has turned into something much more important.

I am deeply concerned that if people continue to view religion primarily as a matter of taste we are lost.  There are undoubtedly some that will tell me I am part of the problem having insisted these many years that Mormons deserve a place at the table.  Read Smith -  once we understand the difference between religion and worship then we can begin to truly understand what freedom of religion really is  and come to understand its necessity for the operation of our nation.

It is time for those of us of faith to engage our brains and subordinate our taste to our reason.  There is simply too much at stake.

©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.

This excellent speech, showing a relaxed, confident Romney, needs to be better known.

(HT: Hot Air.)

©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.

Christian conservatives are gradually coming to terms with the idea that Mitt Romney might be the GOP nominee. And they’ve got some advice if he wants evangelicals to turn out and vote for him in November. Leading social conservatives want Romney to be very public about opposing abortion and gay marriage. The fact that he’s been all over the board on these issues is a problem, along with his Mormonism, but leaders say if Romney has any hopes of rallying the Christian faithful in the fall, he’ll have to be demonstrative in support of the social issues they care about. That, of course, is exactly what the opposite of what his political advisers are likely to recommend for a general election – where Romney will be trolling for votes among independents and moderates

Who knows if this is the true source of the objections or it is cover for simple theological bigotry, but there is one important fact that Evangelicals that are in the camp described have to bear in the mind.  We live in a highly divided nation on the matter of abortion and on the matter of same-sex marriage we are losing ground.  From that essential fact flows one important related fact – it’s not about the presidency.  Abortion is legal due to the courts and same-sex marriage is at the moment a states issue, which is where it should remain.

So, two conclusions flow from these facts.  One, if you want to affect these issues, focusing on the presidential election is pouring your resources down the wrong hole.  Yes the president appoints court members, but even then – a “litmus test” qualification for the court is in violation of the spirit of the constitution.  Which leads me to the second conclusion.

Long before we lost the political and legal battles, we lost in the court of public opinion on abortion.  (If you are among those that believe the court “rammed Roe v Wade down our throat,” check the records – states were legalizing abortion at a rapid pace legislatively.)  We have not yet lost the political battle on same sex marriage, but we re losing the battle in the court of public opinion.  Why?  Somewhere, we have lost our ability to change people’s minds and characters.  That is what the church is supposed to do.  The salvation narrative common to all Christian faiths is about changing people from “sinners” to “saints.”  Among the changes that such a conversion would seemingly create in an individual is an understanding of the social ills of things like abortion and same sex marriage.

The POTUS has to, I repeat HAS TO, be the president for all of the American people – even those that support abortion and same sex marriage.  If my evangelical brethren want a POTUS that is more forceful on these important issues, then maybe they should be spending more time on the the character changing aspects of the church’s mission and less on politics.  I think if they did, the politics might take care of itself.

©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.

Amongst Evangelicals the line between a worship service and a good show can be a pretty thin one – I am sure such is the case in at least some corners of other faith expressions as well.  The difference between worship service and good show goes much deeper than simply style and ritual of the event.  I think the difference is more along the lines of who the event is about.  A worship service is about God.  A good show is about the audience.

If we truly worship God, then we acknowledge that He is our ruler and that therefore, he can “go to work on us,” if you will.  Now bear in mind, I am not talking about God ruling the nation – just the life and character of the individual.  If we are attending a good show then we are entertained, but changed? – Certainly not in any meaningful sense of the word.  When attending a good show, God serves us, we do not serve God.

As a person of faith, if you are looking for who to vote for, one of the things you should consider is whether the candidate in question views God as a ruler or a servant.

I will not attempt to make on judgement on this issue about anyone in the running, but I do think it is an important distinction and I think it helps describe some of the divides that we are seeing in the party.

Worship well this day.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Look; seeing Newt sock the MBM is always fun, but that’s not really what resonated the most with me, and I have to assume that at least some of the SC electorate think the way I do, since they are members of my very common demographic (female, white, 40+ y/o, some college, hunchbacked, three large teeth that don’t meet anywhere, likes pudding. Understandably. It’s frickin’ delicious! Also there’s the tooth situation).

For me, it was the part where he stood up for work. Where he discussed the essential virtues of work. Nobody does that anymore. It was refreshing. It was important to me to hear someone say it. To hear that someone has a f*cking clue what’s going on down here in Realityland. We are out of work and we want it.

This administration seems to think that Americans should view work as a vampire perceives holy water, and nearly every policy out of DC reflects that.

Well, we don’t think that way. We’re Americans. We want to work. Dammit, we’re ready to get back to it. Give us the reins to our own lives, stick your food stamps back in your ass where they came from, and get out of the way. You’re killing us.

This message resonates. That’s why Gingrich won. Not just the slap at ‘the elites,’ but the content of the slap. The part where all work is good work and no one should consider themselves demeaned by what is *good.* Yeah, that may have been pre-formulated, and Juan Williams walked right into it. So? It needed to be said. Most of us thoroughly enjoyed hearing it clearly and unambiguously elucidated.

Fair enough, but remember, Gingrich “stood up for work” in the context of Williams’ question about racism.  Gingrich was ringing the racism bell, without question when he “stood up for work.”  Not directly, of course, but in the context of that question in that environment – it was dog whistle time.

But that is not really the point I want to make in this post.  Rather I want to look at a couple of aspects that go to what this series has been all about – character.

For one thing, what is “work” and has Gingrich ever done it?  I am not saying Gingrich has not made an honest living, but has he worked?  Since leaving congress he has more-or-less been a professional fundraiser.  Oh, sure he “consulted” but have you seen the consulting contract?  He was paid to put his name on a letterhead.  Is that work?  He has established organizations that raise money to carry on for a cause, but what has he produced of value that other people are willing to pay a profitable price to obtain?  In all the stuff Newt Gingrich has done, what is his product?  Beyond Newt Gingrich being the product of Newt Gingrich, I’m not sure I can answer that question.  Is it work when your work consists of developing and promoting yourself?  That is a complex question to answer, more than we can deal with in a blog post like this, but this is worth thinking about:

Prov 21:23-26 – He who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from troubles.   “Proud,” “Haughty,” “Scoffer,” are his names, who acts with insolent pride.  The desire of the sluggard puts him to death, for his hands refuse to work; All day long he is craving, while the righteous gives and does not hold back. (NAS)

So, how to close these series of blog posts?  I think maybe with a short quotation of the Apostle John:

I Jn 3:18 – Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. (NAS)

Much has been said about how wonderful Newt Gingrich is at expressing the feelings and anger and desire for work that people feel.  Words are JUST words.  Feelings can change with the state of your digestion.  In the end it is not the words that matter.  Had Moses simply talked to Pharaoh, the Jews would still be in Egyptian captivity.   Had Jesus come and preached, but never been crucified nor resurrected,  we would not even know of Him, let alone call Him Lord.

Mitt Romney may not be seem to be as eloquent as Newt Gingrich.  Mitt Romney may not seem to connect with the emotions of the electorate as well as Newt Gingrich, but Mitt Romney’s actions in the campaign, as Governor of Massachusetts, as head of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and as a private business man are what matter.

Listen to Newt Gingrich – enjoy his words, revel in them.  But remember this is about who we want to govern the nation.  If words made a good president, then the president we have right now would be the best we have ever had.  Examine the records and lives of these two men.  On the one hand we have the twice-divorce, thrice-married, philandering, deeply prevaricating life-long politician of great words.  On the other hand we have a man married to one woman for decades, of immense character, who only after a remarkable career in business came to politics as a matter of service.  Not much a decision in my book.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.