Article VI Blog

Tonight at 8:00 EDT we’ll see the Bloomberg/Washington Post Republican Presidential Debate.  This will be a “pure MSM” event, with the estimable Charlie Rose as moderator.  Washington Post political correspondent Karen Tumulty and Bloomberg TV White House correspondent Julianna Goldman will also be asking the candidates questions.

Can anyone doubt that this MSM panel will ask  The Question in some form, of either Rick Perry or Mitt Romney?  In anticipation of that likelihood, the Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn has written The Cult of Anti-Mormonism in today’s edition.  He begins with advice that we could have written:

Here’s some advice for Republican candidates appearing at Tuesday’s presidential debate at Dartmouth College. When you are asked, as you will be asked, what you make of the Christian pastor who called the Mormon faith a “cult,” there’s only one appropriate answer.

It comes from the last sentence of Article VI of the Constitution, and it reads as follows: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

McGurn goes on to point out the Pew survey showing that Romney’s faith is more of a problem for liberals than conservatives.

[O]verall, more Democrats than Republicans are hostile to a Mormon candidacy (31% to 23%). More interesting still is Pew’s finding that when it comes to this particular animus, “liberal Democrats stand out, with 41% saying they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate.”

One has to wonder if this tendency might help explain the MSM’s fascination with the Mormon issue.

So how will Charlie Rose and his colleagues approach the religion issue tonight?  Will they simply try to start a bonfire and create headlines?  Or will they try to enlighten the audience?  McGurn concludes by raising Proposition 8 in this context, a subject that we haven’t addressed much lately on this blog:

[I]t’s good to see Republican feet now being held to the fire on an issue the Founders resolved in 1787. Even more encouraging would be a press willing to give attention to very real concern among politically active Mormons: whether a Romney nomination would mean LDS members staying on the sidelines out of fear of the kind of attacks on their property and their livelihoods that their co-religionists experienced with California’s Proposition 8 and its aftermath.

Grab some popcorn and watch with us.

Okay, John’s Turn

It is going to be an interesting show, and most interesting from my perspective will be how much Kool-Aid Charlie Rose et. al. will have consumed.   The Mormon talk continues at a feverish pitch throughout media old and new.  I was going to pass on, as usual, all the links, but at this point they are too grossly numerous, too repetitive, and too beside the point.  They are one prong of what is now emerging as a clearly coordinated political attack on Romney as the front-runner.

Consider: The weekend opened with Jeffress/religion affair, about the only topic hot enough to consume media for an entire weekend.  It was followed on Monday by Perry hitting Romney, once again, on flip-flop.  And this morning a story breaks about some of Romney’s Massachusetts advisers being consulted on the development of Obamacare.  That is three hard punches at Romney’s three biggest perceived weaknesses in, essentially, the three days leading up to the debate.  And so, I repeat the question: Will Charlie Rose and company take this all in and turn the debate into “hammer Romney time” or will they attempt to conduct an actual debate between candidates?  Will they allow their debate agenda to be set by what is clearly a media campaign being waged by one of the candidates, or by the “not Romney” forces generally?

Let me give you just one example.  Romney’s religion – Romney’s religion – Romney’s religion – we have heard and are hearing it until my ears are bleeding.  But will anyone talk about the fact that Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain all claim to have been “called by” or “told by” God to seek office? All this concern about Mormonism and whether electing a Mormon will put Salt Lake City in charge of the nation, and yet I hear no claim of divine imprimatur by the Mormon’s campaign – only the Protestants are making such claims.  Will our moderators question these three candidates on their claims?  Will the moderators wonder how God could call three different people to one job?  Will they examine in exquisite detail the differences between Cain’s National Baptist church, Perry’s Methodist church and Bachmann’s Lutheran cum Evangelical churches?  Will they ask which one of those denominations is the “true” Christian denomination?  Will they examine the Christological differences among these denominations?

If the moderators are smart they will not ask any of those questions, nor will they ask about Romney’s faith; but sadly I think buzz trumps smart and so we are going to be treated to what will doubtlessly be a sordid debate.  I agree with McGurn, all the candidates should answer religion questions with, essentially, “What’s that got to do with what we are here to talk about?”  But I am not sure they will.  Some, of course, did on the Sunday shows already and here’s hoping they will stick to their guns.  But if one of them tries to prevaricate, dodge, or otherwise let the religion point stand without wholly buying into it, you can bet that one is somewhere in the background of the three-pronged attack that we are seeing emerge.

Which brings me to one related issue.   I got an email from Tony Perkins yesterday.  Tony is the guy that runs the Family Research Council, which is the organization behind the VVS.  Interestingly, that widely broadcast email is supposed to be replicated on the FRCAction website, but the link is non-functional.  Here’s the pertinent portion of the email:

Bringing together 3,400 conservative activists, leaders, and speakers with reporters from almost every news outlet is not without some risk. And although thousands of social conservatives came to Washington to talk about restoring America’s moral foundation, it didn’t fit the media’s storyline. Having been a reporter for a short while I know what journalists are looking for. Controversy. And it didn’t take long for them to find it when the Texas pastor who introduced Gov. Perry was asked by reporters if Mormonism is a cult. When he said yes — even though it was in a sidebar conversation with the media — his answer became a dominant story from VVS.

Since the firestorm erupted on Friday, I’ve been on most of the news networks responding to the questions of the press. This is what I’ve said: America is a country where religious freedom is constitutionally protected and where we respect the right for people to practice their faith publicly and peacefully in a free nation. President George Washington replied to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island: “[H]appily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

We clearly recognize the fact that Mormon theology includes doctrines that are distinct from Evangelical theology and Catholic theology. At the same time, the goal of the values voter movement is not to build a ” National Church .” Our goal is to build a national coalition based on the shared values of respecting human life, strengthening natural marriage, defending religious liberty, promoting personal and fiscal responsibility, and maintaining our national security. When we successfully work together with those who share our values, we are preserving and strengthening our religious liberty, so that we can freely share the truth of the gospel with everyone.

What’s missing?  Perkins does not accept the responsibility for Jeffress’ presence on the dais.  Nor does he repudiate Jeffress’ claims, in that particular context, for the distractions they are.  He acts as if he was caught as unawares as the Perry campaign claims, yet the Perry campaign claims that it was Perkins’ organization that made the call to put Jeffress in that spot.  As we have amply demonstrated, Jeffress was a well-known quantity.

Point being, people are running away from Jeffress as fast as they know how.  This prong of the attack has clearly backfired.  Will Charlies Rose and friends be smart enough to run away too?

As to Lowell’s popcorn invitation, I think we are going to need seat belts.

&nbsp

John Mark here:

As a former Anglican I was going to propose a fifth (where every two or three Anglicans gather, there is a fifth), but in the interest of dialog and fraternity, I will accept a large milkshake for tonight’s debate.

If asked, I would reply: “With millions of Americans unemployed, with the unborn having no Constitutional protections, and with the American family under assault with the Obama economy, I think we have better things to discuss than imposing an unconstitutional religious test on a GOP candidate.”

If they pressed Perry should say, “Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist. Dwight Eisenhower was not even baptized when he took office. I would attend Carter’s church and like Ike’s success.”

If Romney is pressed, he should roll his eyes and say: “Ask the unemployed in Detroit if they care about where I go to church or about jobs . . . if anything other than jobs comes up it will be the Lions and Tigers. Next question, please.”

With Romney leading in Iowa according to some polls where he is putting in little effort and with the Christie endorsement, isn’t it obvious that most conservatives are willing to vote for Romney?

Posted in News Media Bias, Prejudice, Proposition 8, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Same-sex marriage | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Rick Perry has raced to the top of the polls in part on the basis of his overt religiosity.  He seems to be filling the role from which Michele Bachmann has fallen – the candidate that speaks plainly about faith and calls it like it is.

Well, in last night’s debate, Perry was certainly confrontational and plain speaking.  His direct confrontations with Romney have become THE meme of the show, but it was his petulance at Karl Rove and Ron Paul that defined his performance in my mind.  Needless to say the left-leaning press is, as we predicted, using the confrontation with Romney to drive a wedge into the party generally, one they hope will divide us sufficiently to prevent a win in the general.

That wedge has a distinct religious angle to it – Perry the firebrand Evangelical vs Romney the calm, cool, collected and establishment Mormon.  It is more than a bit ironic that the Mormon is cast as the establishment is it not?  Religion played virtually no role in last night’s debate.  Perry’s Galileo crack was as close as it got – a bit of irony in that as well, on multiple levels.  (Brian Williams “Catholic” lead into a question to Rick Santorum does not count, it was not really a question about religion.)  This was in stark contrast to the Labor Day Palmetto Freedom Forum in which Perry did not participate, staying home in Texas to deal with the wildfire emergency.  Although I must say it is an interesting choice that Perry remained in Texas to deal with the emergency for the forum that was social issue heavy, but found time to get to the debate that was not, even though the fires still rage in Texas.  Religious discussion conveniently avoided.

But Perry did get asked some religious questions yesterday.  It came before the debate in an interview he did with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: Now Governor Perry, you’ve attracted a lot of criticism. The New York Times’ Bill Keller, who’s now a columnist, used to be their editor, says you’re a dominionist. And Dana Milbank of the Washington Post says you’re a theocrat. What do you put down to these attacks, particularly those on your religion?

RP: Well obviously, they’re real scared of me, is what I would say. And they understand that America is longing for someone who stands up and tells it like it is, someone who know what they believe in, someone who is not afraid of the left. And I’m not going to cower, whether it’s someone who’s writing for any of the mainstream media. If they want to attack me, have at it. But I know what I believe in, and I’m going to go forward, full-bore, full tilt, because I believe in America. I know that our best days are in front of us, and I know if you’ll free up the American entrepreneur, and clearly tell them, listen, you risk your capital, and you’re going to have an opportunity to have a return on your investment, our best days are ahead of us. The greatest exploit in America’s history has not been written, yet, because we have that type of spirit in this country. And you know, write what they will. I know what I believe in, and I think I’m on the better side of the angels on this one, because I truly know that America believes that we have the work ethic, the values…we just need to be freed from these federal government regulations that are killing jobs, and sending the message that don’t risk your capital, because you’re not going to have a chance to have a return on your investment.

Let’s see, Perry was asked a direct question about the most truly pressing religio-political question of the day and he was completely non-responsive – COMPLETELY!  He retreats to his talking points, and brushes this off as an attack.  Does he defend the place of faith in America? – no.  Does he address the charges of “dominionist” or “theocrat”? – no.  Does he even use the words “God” or “Jesus Christ” as a part of “what he believes in?” – no.

I am not going to begin to try and fathom Perry’s game here, but I am going to say as someone interested in preserving the place of religiosity in American politics, this does not sound like the guy that I want debating on my behalf.  Set up with a great question, by a religion friendly questioner to a religion friendly audience Perry had the perfect opportunity to stand up for all of us of faith and our voice.  He failed miserably.  He appears to be running away from the discussion altogether.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Political Strategy, Reading List, Religious Freedom, Same-sex marriage, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Mollie Hemingway at GetReligion has done a survey and analysis of MSM coverage on Maine’s Question 1, which passed Tuesday night and overturned the Maine Legislature’s approval of same-sex marriage.  The entire piece is worth reading.  Among other things, Mollie notes the odd way in which the MSM focuses on the religious background of the Yes On 1 campaign’s backers, including the apparently unquestioned assertion that the National Organization for Marriage “is a stalking horse for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”  Here’s one paragraph:

It’s so interesting to me that so many of these stories about the Yes on 1 victory in Maine portray it as a loss for gay activists. But that similar focus isn’t brought to bear on the scrutiny of the groups that are involved in the effort to legalize same-sex marriage. I mean, I’m on a bunch of denominational news list-servs and there were plenty of religious groups fighting this ballot initiative and working to keep same-sex marriage legal in Maine. Why don’t they get the same scrutiny as the Mormons, who actually may have had no discernible role in the Maine campaign? It’s just odd.

It’s my understanding that the LDS Church indeed provided no organizational support to Yes On 1, so it’s all the more curious that its name is being bandied about in the “news” coverage of the election.

John thinks about it a bit:

What fascinated me about the piece was how incredibly convoluted was the argument to arrive at the conclusion that the whole thing was some sort of Mormon plot.  It was a conspiracy theory on the order of the bilderburgrs.

These theories gain traction because the proponents of same sex marriage are so convinced of the rightness of their stance that they believe there must be an “unbelievable” conspiracy for them to be defeated.  The Mormons are singled out as the conspiracy’s source based in part on the tightly held nature of some of their practices (a vacuum, even an innocent one, is always filled) and because it plays on age old prejudices.

What saddens me is that we have recently been treated to two rather elaborate, and popular, movies that paint the Roman Catholic church in similar conspiratorial terms.  Can the rest of Christianity be far behind?  Our philosophical and political opponents seek not merely to defeat us in the ballot box, but to portray us as purposefully evil.  All the more reason for us to unify, not bicker.

Which brings me to what frightens me.  Within the “Tea Party” movement, and the other “true conservative” movements are elements that are looking for such conspiracies.  Like some proponents of same sex marriage, some pro-lifers and some opposition to same-sex marriage is so convinced of the sheer rightness of their stance, that they believe opposition must be born of conspiracy.  But worse, the same age-old prejudices are at play and so, without realizing it, they buy the conspiracies of the left and look within their own party for the conspiracies.  We are then rent asunder and the left prevails because of our disunity.

Which raises the question of whether or not the perceived conspiracy theories of the left are really conspiracy theories at all, or whether they are strategic efforts on the part of the left.  Now there is a conspiracy.  But then reason prevails and tells us that many on the left are sincere, if misguided, in their conspiratorial concerns, but  there are some willing to use that sincerity a bit more cynically.  And in turn, they use our “sincerity” to their advantage as well.

Posted in Proposition 8, Same-sex marriage | 7 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post