Article VI Blog

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

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

Easter Music

Once again Easter is here. Our regular readers know that the three authors of this blog belong to different churches and faith traditions, but we all strive to be disciples of Jesus Christ and take seriously our commitment to do so. In that spirit, and as before, I’ll post the words of my all-time favorite hymn, “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing:”

Come, thou Fount of every blessing,
tune my heart to sing thy grace;
streams of mercy, never ceasing,
call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,
mount of thy redeeming love.

Here I raise mine Ebenezer;
hither by thy help I’m come;
and I hope, by thy good pleasure,
safely to arrive at home.

Jesus sought me when a stranger,
wandering from the fold of God;
he, to rescue me from danger,
interposed his precious blood.

O to grace how great a debtor
daily I’m constrained to be!
Let thy goodness, like a fetter,
bind my wandering heart to thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
prone to leave the God I love;
here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
seal it for thy courts above.

This biographical summary tells us a little about the author, Robert Robinson. The music is a beautiful traditional tune named “Nettleton,” about which you can find more in Wyeth’s Repository of Sacred Music, Part Second, by John Wyeth. I’ve heard several hymns set to the same tune. As a congregational hymn “Come Thou Fount” is a little on the difficult side but most church choirs can handle it easily. My favorite arrangement is the one by Mack Wilberg, music director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.  (This Youtube is worth watching.)

Easter Thoughts

This is another favorite, from the late Neal A. Maxwell, of whom Hugh Hewitt is a great admirer. It’s full of quotable nuggets:

The gift of immortality to all is so choice a gift that our rejoicing in these two great and generous gifts should drown out any sorrow, assuage any grief, conquer any mood, dissolve any despair, and tame any tragedy.

Even those who see life as pointless will one day point with adoration to the performance of the Man of Galilee in the crowded moments of time known as Gethsemane and Calvary. Those who now say life is meaningless will yet applaud the atonement, which saved us all from meaninglessness.

Christ’s victory over death routs the rationale that there is a general and irreversible human predicament; there are only personal predicaments, but even from these we can also be rescued by following the pathway of Him who rescued us from general extinction.

A disciple’s “brightness of hope,” therefore, means that at funerals his tears are not because of termination, but because of interruption and separation. Though just as wet, his tears are not of despair, but of appreciation and anticipation. Yes, for disciples, the closing of a grave is but the closing of a door that will later be flung open.

It is the Garden Tomb, not life, that is empty!

Neal A. Maxwell, Wherefore Ye Must Press Forward, pp. 132-3

“Those who now say life is meaningless will yet applaud the atonement, which saved us all from meaninglessness.”

I love that. Happy Easter.

Posted in Miscellany, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Yeah, I know, with that head, this should be a JMR post, but it is little old me.

This is Good Friday, the day on which all of us that call upon the name of Jesus commemorate his crucifixion and anticipate his resurrection.  It’s a holy day.  It is the first day of a weekend on which the wheel of history spins.  I don’t want to talk politics today, there are better things to do, but I find they are related this Good Friday.

Your see this Good Friday, just two days after a hateful diatribe by a national television host, a diatribe which remains virtually uncovered by anybody but this blog, the reason that Jesus had to die and be resurrected seems most apparent to me.  Sure there is lots to read about the Orrin Hatch/Debbie Wasserman Schultz indirect exchange, but the real honest bigotry and hatred goes without mention.

I want to make the case for why this is in fact hate, with apologies to my Mormon friends for the manner in which I will advance this argument.  It’s pretty simple really.  The story of Mormonism’s birth is, to those of us that are non-believers, a bit odd.  I will grant you that.  But let’s think just a moment about the birth of our own faith.  We celebrate this weekend the death and resurrection – yes resurrection, not resuscitation (nobody was there yelling “clear” and shocking Jesus with paddles – he was dead and starting to rot.)  There’s that business about Paul and the road to Damascus and going blind and scales falling off and all that.  Oh, and then there is that dream that Peter had about what was OK to eat and what wasn’t.  I could go on here folks, but just for a minute put yourself in the shoes of someone who does not believe our stories – their pretty odd too.

Now, how often do we tell people that call our stories odd that they hate us?  Pretty often – “The war against religion” – sounds like an accusation to me.   My point is this, if it is hateful to oppose us because you find our stories odd then it is equally hateful for us or anyone else to do the same towards Mormons.  The disrespect in O’Donnell’s diatribe was hateful.

David Gregory made a tiny bit of news yesterday saying Mitt Romney is “afraid” to discuss his religion.  I don’t think Romney is afraid of anything, but I do think he is being smart by not given jerks like O’Donnell ammunition, particularly when no one seems to be rising to his defense.  Apparently, O’Donnell’s expression of hatred is one this nation is willing to accept – despite having fought wars over hatred of blacks and Jews.  Which brings me back to my traditional Christian brethren.

The big news they made yesterday was a meeting with Santorum.  There is coverage here and here.  The CSM heads their piece:

Santorum meets with conservatives to plan last-ditch effort
The meeting was a mix of fiscal and social conservatives who oppose Mitt Romney’s campaign.

I find it hard to believe this is about politics anymore.  Richard Land seems to be alone among social conservative leaders in “getting it.”  His response yesterday to this whole thing was:

“I have not spoken to Rick about this issue, but as his friend, I would advise him to consider getting out of the race at this point,” Land told The Christian Post. “Rick is a still a young man and has a bright future in 2016 and beyond.”

“He has run a solid campaign the last six months and resurrected himself once again as a major political figure in our nation,” continued Land. “This is the most important election in our nation since 1860 and we need time to vet and access the statements and beliefs of the two men who will be representing our country’s two major parties.”

That’s thinking politically, so what is everybody else thinking?  Instead of figuring out how to beat hatred like O’Donnell’s, they are busy trying to figure out how to pile on, even if a bit nicer about it.

Which brings me to the bottom line, and where I am going to get really preachy.  Mitt Romney has won.  Let’s assume for a minute that he is the worst nightmare this bunch seems to think he is – I deeply disagree, but I grant it simply to make a point.  The results of the primary make it plain that the Republican party agrees more with your monster than with you – in other words they do not see Mitt Romney as the problem you do.

How do you change that?

Opposition like that we are seeing here is rooted in more than just political opposition.  Philosophy, religion, whatever type of ideology it is, is what the fight at this point is really about for those that are still fighting it.  Electoral politics is not where such fights are won.  If the Mormons are winning it is because through missionary work and breeding (they do have a LOT of kids) they are winning more hearts and minds than we are.  The response to such is not hopeless political action, but to be as zealous about our faith as they are about theirs – to knock on more doors than their missionaries, to educate more kids in our schools, to be as bold in our values as they are in theirs.

Which takes me back to Lowell’s follow-up on O’Donnell in which he quoted O”Donnell on fearing Muslims, but not Mormons.   Even O’Donnell knows that the object of his hatred will respond to his hatred with love.

And you wonder why the Mormons appear to be winning!  The answer to the political problems Evangelicals appear to face is not last-ditch efforts or brokered conventions or trickier politics.  It is to be more Christian.

Here endeth the sermon.  Easter is coming.

Posted in Understanding Religion | 9 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

This morning I thought I was being cute with videos – turns out I was prophetic, and late.  Instead of “let’s get ready to rumble” – the rumble is on!  Just an hour ago, Lowell showed us Joe Klein.  And now – thanks to David French, we have our old friend Larry O’Donnell:

Two quick comments here.  Firstly, this is so utterly transparent.  Now that it is apparent to all but the delusional that Romney has the primary sewn up, the left has decided to start shoot.  I started Politico’s new eBook this morning and it seems to be singing the same tune, though in a muted fashion.  I honestly thought the left would be smarter than this kind of frontal assault, but they are not playing this for the general just yet – what they are trying to do is create a revolt inside the Republican caucus.  As David French said:

If You’re An Evangelical Who Doesn’t Like Mormons, You Should Still Be Outraged At This

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.

Lowell adds . . .

Update: Thanks to a tweet by Guy P. Benson, here’s an excerpt from Kevin Williamson’s NRO response to O’Donnell:

I am announcing the creation of a new award, which I will call the Golden Ass, to be presented to those who resort to anti-Mormon bigotry in their campaign against Mitt Romney. Today’s Golden Ass is Lawrence O’Donnell, an asinus aureus if ever there was one, an ass of exceptional asininity.

Read the whole thing.

Posted in Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 14 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

As an addendum to John’s post earlier today, here’s some more about that incident in Wisconsin yesterday.  There is video is at the link, but the most important part of the event is reported there as well, in Romney’s follow-up comments:

“This gentleman wanted to talk about the doctrines of my religion. I’ll talk about the practices of my faith,” [Romney] said. “I had the occasion in my church to be asked to be the pastor, if you will, of a congregation.”

Romney described his work as a bishop in his suburban Boston ward, or church. Mormon clergy, called bishops, are unpaid leadership positions and perform similar duties as pastors do in other churches.

Romney described counseling church members dealing “with unemployment, with marital difficulties, with health difficulties of their own and with their kids.”

After addressing his religion in a speech during the 2008 Republican primary campaign, this campaign cycle Romney has attempted to keep his focus on the economy. The occasional references he makes to his church often deal with his time spent working with struggling parishioners.

“When you get a chance to know people on a very personal basis, whether you’re serving as a pastor or as a counselor or in other kinds of roles, you understand that every kind of person you see is facing some challenges,” Romney said Monday. “And one of the reasons I’m running for president of the United States is I want to help people, I want to lighten those burdens.”

This is exactly what Gov. Romney ought to be saying about religious questions that come his way. No, he’s not a spokesman for the church; it would be politically silly for him to take on that role, and it’s not fair to expect him to do so. But when he talks about what his faith meant to him in his life and how he served, people get a better sense of Romney the man. That is much more important to know about a presidential candidate than what he thinks about the proper mode of baptism.

The later comments to the news media by his questioner, Mr. Hatch, are also instructive — or should be, if anyone in the MSM is paying attention:

Speaking with reporters after the event, Hatch, the questioner, said he believed his question was relevant considering the general election race against President Barack Obama.

“Either he believes the Book of Mormon or he doesn’t,” Hatch said. “I think that’s an important issue. He’s going up against a black guy! He’s going against Obama. This is a racial issue.”

Here we have someone who is not a Mormon trying to tell the world what Mormons believe. (The guy is interpreting the Book of Mormon, for goodness’ sake!) It is ridiculous to begin with and irrelevant in any event. The account would have been more accurate and balanced if it had included a sentence something like this: “Hatch, who said he is is not a Mormon, said….” As for what the church believes and teaches about race, that’s crystal clear and was restated only a few weeks ago.   The MSM should know that, rather than give space to seemingly crackpot questioners with an axe to grind from rival campaigns.

But as we have said before, the MSM has a certain reaction to efforts like Mr. Hatch’s. It reminds me of the way our family’s house cats respond to this:

They just can’t resist it.

 

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