August 18, 2008

The Honorable George H.W. Bush

George Bush Presidential Library and Museum

1000 George Bush Drive West

College Station, TX 77845

Dear Mr. President:

Last December, it was our distinct pleasure to visit the magnificent library archiving and celebrating your service as the president of our great nation. The occasion was your hosting Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech. Your introduction of Gov. Romney was most gracious and his speech captured the very essence of what is great about the American vision of how religion and public life intersect.

Sadly, since that time, some involved in the current presidential election cycle have behaved, very publicly, in a fashion that represents some of our worst tendencies when we stand at that intersection. Of course our nation is full of groups with their own particular viewpoints, all vying for attention - and that is to be encouraged; it is an important part of America’s greatness.

Candidates for the highest office in the land, however,  must, as Gov. Romney said that day in your auditorium, rise above petty bickering to unite our nation.  To accomplish that, candidates must unite their political party, not tear it apart on religious, ethnic, or other grounds.

And yet, former presidential candidate and current FOX News commentator Mike Huckabee seems intent on creating such discord and disunity. His recent efforts to stand at the head of the “anybody but Romney for vice president” movement are simply offensive. His protests to the contrary notwithstanding, that movement and his energy on its behalf are so clearly based in religious bias, even bigotry, that they simply step outside the boundaries of legitimate presidential electoral debate and threaten our party’s unity.  Such behavior can only serve to cheapen our nation’s political discourse as it increasingly descends into the gutter.

This is more than mere conjecture.  Recent polling evidence, particularly that out of a Vanderbilt University study based on surveys conducted when both Huckabee and Romney were still active presidential candidates, clearly indicates that the very limited arguments Gov. Huckabee uses in his opposition to Gov. Romney play on traditional Christian prejudices concerning Mormons.  In many cases those arguments cases are simply “code” for “we cannot vote for him, he’s a Mormon.”

In 1908, William Howard Taft sought the presidency. Mr Taft was a Unitarian and he was opposed on religious grounds by William Jennings Bryan using tactics similar to those we are seeing Gov. Huckabee use against Gov. Romney today. The man leaving the presidency at that time, Theodore Roosevelt, felt it necessary the defy the convention of former presidents staying clear of the fray and to defend the right of every American, regardless of religion, to hold the highest office in the land. He did so in a series of now-famous letters to the various parties involved.

Today we write to you, as the senior Republican statesman in our nation, to ask you to take a similarly bold stand, to write such an important letter and to do so openly. Much has changed since the turn of the last century; our politics are conducted far more publicly than they once were. We ask that your letter be open and made available in the leading journals of this time.

This type of behavior we are seeing simply must be repudiated. You stand in a unique position to provide such repudiation. Gov. Huckabee must be made to understand that to continue to behave in this fashion will permanently disqualify him, and those he represents, from serious consideration for any leadership role in the Republican party ever again. Few people, if any, can speak for the entire party with as much wisdom, experience, and insight as you can.  You alone not only are beyond the battles of presidential politics, but also enjoy the moral authority coming from having won them.  You can help us keep our party, this nation and our electoral processes within the bounds of traditional American understanding and decency. We will be a much worse nation indeed if we break down into identity group bickering instead of uniting to elect the best people to govern us.

If we may be of any service to you in your efforts to fulfill our request, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and may God bless!

Sincerely,

Lowell Brown

Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Co-Author

Article VI Blog

http://www.article6blog.com

John Schroeder

evangelical Presbyterian, member of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America

Co-Author

Article VI Blog

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Miscellany | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

We have an update on the portion of Thursday morning’s post devoted to my conversation with Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics.  I received this e-mail from Mark shortly after our post appeared:

Lowell,

I’m not doing much posting this week, so here’s a quick personal response via creaky dialup where I am on vacation.

About evangelicals themselves, I’m inclined to think that some of the reaction to Romney’s flip-flopping is at most semi-conscious. The point there is that to the extent he has moved in evangelicals’ direction on certain social issues, he may only have confirmed their suspicion of Mormons. As for me, I don’t, as a Jew, really have a dog in that fight. I think generally people should get to call themselves what they want to, and if they believe in Jesus as God and Savior, that seems Christian to me.

If I ran the nomenclature world, though, I might prefer a different word for both Mormons and those who call themselves Messianic Jews (or Jews for Jesus); namely, Judeo-Christians. For one thing, the LDS Church understands itself (or used to) as restoring ancient Israel as well as early Christianity. For another, Mormons do not profess the historic creeds. So Judeo-Christian might be a helpful way of identifying certain churches and sects. But of course that’s not going to happen.

So, as far as I’m concerned, Christian it is. As for the false pretenses part, well, there’s always a risk of that charge when at issue is a religion that has some esoteric component, and Mormonism has always had that. But Mormon missionaries never make any bones about the fact that they do represent the LDS Church, so I fail to see how the pretenses are false, except from the standpoint of those who refuse to allow Mormons the name Christian.

Cheers, Mark

Thanks, Mark.  For the record, Mormons like to refer to our faith as “restored Christianity,” but that’s not a term we use very much outside our own walls.  Meanwhile,  Bob Millet of BYU has some timely comments in response to this provocative question:

Isn’t it true the [LDS] church has changed its emphasis on Christ as a public relations ploy? Why do you want to be Christians all of a sudden?

Read the whole thing.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

My, My . . .

Bishop Charles Chaput points out that for Catholics, at least, issues matter above party loyalty. To which I respond, “Indeed! But party loyalty creates effectiveness on the issue - abortion. Is there really another option?”

A leading Godblog (someone that rejects profoundly the name “evangelical”) accuses some pastors backing Obama of “going low.” I have to agree.

The Examiner floats a rumor that Huckabee followers may go third party. Not at all surprising to me.

Speaking of no surprises, McCain remains largely mum on his faith journey.

Kathleen Parker opines that Warren was the BIG winner over the weekend and that church/state separation was the big loser. I think there is a bit of a straw man in that later conclusion, it is more something to be concerned about than something that actually happened.

Lowell interjects: I did like this bit from Parker’s piece:

The Warren Q&A wasn’t an inquisition exactly, but viewers would be justified in squirming.

What is the right answer, after all? What happens to the one who gets evil wrong? What’s a proper relationship with Jesus? What’s next? Interrogations by rabbis, priests and imams? What candidate dare decline on the basis of mere principle?

Both Obama and McCain gave “good” answers, but that’s not the point. They shouldn’t have been asked. Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that “Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” or that McCain feels that he is “saved and forgiven”?

What does that mean, anyway? What does it prove? Nothing except that these men are willing to say whatever they must — and what most Americans personally feel is no one’s business — to win the highest office.

I think she’s just a bit over the top here, but her questions are provocative. We’re at a point in history when the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of probing a candidate’s religious conscience. The country’s not in a good place on that issue.

Finally . . .

A former Minnesota Governor says something really, really smart.

And, Lowell adds: We are in a little discussion with Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics. Mark seems to be describing, or explaining, the Evangelical claim that “Mormons lie.” (This is a view John and I think is held only by the most extreme anti-Mormon Evangelicals.) Mark opines:

The justification for voting against Mormons is not that they belong to some non-evangelical faith but that their faith misrepresents itself [as Christian], and so is not to be trusted. Electing a Mormon would somehow sanction this way of doing business, and therefore send the wrong message to Americans. Under the circumstances, it is plain how the flip-flop charge [against Romney] reinforces the prejudice. What’s wrong with Romney the politician is what’s wrong with his faith: Both sail under false pretenses.

I find Mark’s argument woefully ambiguous in at least one respect, and commented on his blog:

Mark, I find your point intriguing although I remain unconvinced. Maybe I simply hope you are wrong. For now, I’d be interested in knowing what you think. Are you also saying that both Romney and his faith “sail under false pretenses,” and that a creedal Christian is therefore justified in not voting for him for that reason alone? Or are you saying only that some evangelicals think so?

I look forward to Mark’s response. Meanwhile, I’ll comment on his overall point: It’s based on an enormous straw man. When anti-Mormon Evangelicals say Mormons are not Christian, they really mean Mormons are not orthodox or historical or creed-accepting Christians. We Mormons heartily agree with that. We devoutly believe in Jesus Christ, the historical figure, as the Savior of mankind, but we reject the creeds. Therefore no Mormon who has even a basic understanding of his own faith would pretend to be a creedal Christian. We will insist that we are followers of Jesus Christ. We are very straightforward about that. Now, if some find that approach to Christianity deceptive, it is they who have some explaining to do, not Mormons.

John adds a late post-script: I have been reviewing the number of times we have addressed the “Mormons lie” meme in its many variants lately, and reflecting on the many conversations I have had with people that advance it. It really comes at two levels. The first level is from the rabid silly ones - hardcore bigots that will grab at any straw to justify their bigotry.

Then there are those that are simply uncomfortable, generally because of a lack of knowledge and experience, with Mormonism, and are looking for a reason to stay safely in their shell.

We have a problem on this blog that I do not think we have adequately addressed. There is little to do with the first level group but label them bigots and send them away. The second level group is a different story. Though they indeed practice a soft form of bigotry, to apply the “bigot” label to them simply makes the outside world more hostile, not less, and tends to drive them deeper into their shell instead of invite them out.

Food for thought.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

. . . Waiting to hear about John McCain’s VP choice, we thought we would reprint one of our longest, and most read and quoted pieces. In April of ‘07 Kenneth Woodward, under the guise of expertise, authored a piece in the NYTimes on Romney and Mormonism that was nothing short of scandalous. At Hugh Hewitt’s request, on April 10, 2007 we “fisked” it. Lowell started the ball rolling:

The Cluelessness of Ken Woodward

Well, maybe that should be the clueless and arrogant elitism of Kenneth Woodward, Newsweek’s retired religion editor. All three defects appeared in Woodward’s New York Times op-ed yesterday.

Most people who follow the issue of Mitt Romney’s religion and its impact on his candidacy have already read Kenneth Woodward’s Times piece, The Presidency’s Mormon Moment. As a Mormon, or a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”), I had become accustomed to Woodward’s writing about my faith. His work seemed to me consistently negative, often simply mistaken or at best distorted in important respects, and frequently unfair.

Apparently I wasn’t the only Mormon who thought so. As I wrote yesterday, Jan Shipps is the foremost non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism. In 2002 Shipps wrote about press coverage of the Church during the during the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics. In a revealing aside, she reports that Woodward, while writing a Newsweek cover story on the Church’s impact on the Games, couldn’t get even one member of the LDS First Presidency or Quorum of Twelve Apostles to sit for an interview. Presumably the LDS leaders were gun-shy because of Woodward’s poor history of writing about Mormons.

That’s kind of like a reporter on the Congressional beat who has burned so many members of Congress so many times, no congressman or congresswoman will talk to him.

So I came to Woodward’s op-ed with low expectations. When I first blogged about it yesterday, I didn’t even bother to question the biggest howlers in his piece. Ironically, only after I saw the outraged reactions of my Evangelical co-blogger John and Hugh Hewitt (also a non-Mormon) did I realize how poor a job Woodward had done.

When I briefly called in to Hugh’s show toward the end of the day, he urged us to “do an annotated edition of the Woodward interview.” Well, we’ll improve a little on Hugh’s idea and annotate portions of both the New York Times op-ed itself and Hugh’s interview. Remember those three themes: (1) clueless (2) arrogant (3) elitist.

The New York Times Op-ed

Quoted below are some of the more galling paragraphs from Mr. Woodward’s piece:

“Among the reasons Americans distrust the Mormon church is Mormon clannishness. Because every worthy Mormon male is expected to be a lay priest in voluntary service to the church, the demands on his time often leave little opportunity to cultivate close friendships with non-Mormon neighbors. A good Mormon is a busy Mormon. Those — like Mr. Romney — who serve as bishops (pastors of congregations) often find it difficult to schedule evenings at home with their own families.”

It’s hard to know where to begin with this one. As a Mormon, I always smile when people like Mr. Woodward tell me what my life is like. My non-Mormon friends and neighbors will probably find it surprising that I don’t have time for them. Jesting aside, it is true that we Mormons develop fast friendships within our faith community. Beyond that, a gross generalization like Woodward’s is simply impossible to respond to.

“To many Americans, Mormonism is a church with the soul of a corporation. Successful Mormon males can expect to be called, at some time in their lives, to assume full-time duties in the church’s missions, in its vast administrative offices in Salt Lake City or in one of many church-owned businesses. Mormons like to hire other Mormons, and those who lose their jobs can count on the church networks to find them openings elsewhere. Mr. Romney put those same networks to effective use in raising part of his $23 million in campaign contributions.”

“To many Americans.” Which ones would those be? I suspect that means, “To Ken Woodward.” It’s a little hard to imagine someone remarking, during a lunchtime conversation, “You know, that Mormon Church really does seem to have the soul of a corporation, doesn’t it?”

Now, I’m not a journalist, I’m a mere attorney, and maybe I have too much respect for the idea that assertions need some factual support, and simply citing “many Americans” as support doesn’t suffice. Don’t journalists– even those writing op-ed pieces– think so too?

As for the basic assertion here, the Church has a lay ministry, so we all have to serve in order for the organization to survive. Some teach little children in Sunday School, some serve as Scoutmaster. A very few serve in the top-level positions to which Woodward refers. The business about the “church networks” finding us jobs– well, we wish that were true. We do have an employment service that charges no commission to prospective employers, but that service is open to all comers, Mormon and non-Mormon, and the applicants eventually have to get past the interviews and actually convince the employer they’re qualified.

In Woodward’s April 9 interview with Hugh Hewitt, Hugh raised Woodward’s “to many Americans” language. This exchange (in blue type below) ensued:

HH: . . . What do you base that on?

KW: Oh, come on. What do you want me to say? 562,000 Americans, as opposed to 57, 14…you know…

HH: Just a level, just a level, just sort of a rough number.

KW: Yeah, yeah, I think that’s the image of it, and that’s the way I put it. I think you know that.

HH: No, but I mean, how many is many? I’m sure that some people believe that. But at what point…what do you think? How many, what percentage of Americans do you believe believe that?

KW: I don’t know. Am I supposed to know?

HH: Yeah, I think you write something in the New York Times, you ought to have something to back it up.

KW: Hey, look, you know, you’re kind of unbelievable. Look, what did you want me to do? Run a survey before I did it? Of course I used many. I could have used some. I think that’s true.

HH: Could have used a few.

KW: And you’re really picking at something. I mean, you know, you’ve got a bug up your butt about something, I don’t know.”

Does anyone else detect some real annoyance on Woodward’s part at being held to account this way? I wonder if he was ever subjected to such scrutiny during his 38 years as Newsweek’s religion editor?

Back to Woodward’s op-ed:

“Moreover, Mormons are perceived to be unusually secretive. Temple ceremonies — even weddings — are closed to non-Mormons, and church members are told not to disclose what goes on inside them. This attitude has fed anti-Mormon charges of secret and unholy rites.”

[This is a very old anti-Mormon argument; we commented on it in detail here.]

“[T]he candidate should take the time to set the record straight. . . . But Mr. Romney must be sure to express himself in a way that will be properly understood. Any journalist who has covered the church knows that Mormons speak one way among themselves, another among outsiders. [What?] This is not duplicity but a consequence of the very different meanings Mormon doctrine attaches to words it shares with historic Christianity.

“For example, Mormons speak of God, but they refer to a being who was once a man of ‘flesh and bone,’ like us.”

[Well, no. We believe God, the Father of us all, now has a body of flesh and bone. We do believe God is an exalted man, and that’s a complex doctrine I can’t do justice to here. But I won’t quibble about small stuff like that. When Catholics talk about the Stations of the Cross, I must admit I am not sure what they’re talking about either. Even so, I know it’s important to my Catholic friends, so I leave it alone.]

John inserts himself briefly: I have read several books on Mormon theology and the best of them, one by Robert Millet out of BYU and the other co-authored by Stephen Robinson (Mormon) and Craig Bloomberg (creedal), admit that creedals and Mormons often use the same words in different ways. However, in my experience is this does not lead to “talking differently” inside and outside, but rather a whole lot of ground-laying when talking at all.

Besides, this is really a thinly-veiled accusation of lying. It is a particularly egregious accusation because its real purpose is to lend credence to attacks on other fronts that might otherwise be considered trivial, like the whole hunting thing. This is a truly ugly form of bias and bigotry. We really should be better than this as a nation.

And now - back to quoting Woodward and Lowell:

“[Mormons] speak of salvation, but to them that means admittance to a “celestial kingdom” where a worthy couple can eventually become “gods” themselves. The Heavenly Father of whom they speak is married to a Heavenly Mother. And when they emphasize the importance of the family, they may be referring to their belief that marriage in a Mormon temple binds families together for all eternity.”

[Yes, that’s part of it, because we believe the family unit can be eternal. Most people find that to be a very appealing idea. It is not some kind of code; it’s simply what we believe.]

“Thus, when Mr. Romney told South Carolina Republicans a few months ago that Jesus was his ‘personal savior,’ he used Southern Baptist language to affirm a relationship to Christ that is quite different in Mormon belief. (For Southern Baptists, ‘personal savior’ implies a specific born-again experience that is not required or expected of Mormons.)”

[That’s news to me. See if you can read this chapter from the Book of Mormon– well-known to committed Church members– and come to the same conclusion. Hint: It discusses how “to gain salvation, men must repent and keep the commandments, be born again, cleanse their garments through the blood of Christ, be humble and strip themselves from pride and envy, and do the works of righteousness.”]

‘Especially at Regent University, Mr. Romney should avoid using language that blurs fundamental differences among religious traditions. Rather, he should acknowledge those differences and insist that no candidate for public office should have to apologize for his or her religious faith.”

[But isn’t Woodward asking that Romney do just that? Does Woodward really believe that once Romney makes an “explanation” of Mormon doctrines, that will be the end of the matter, the way Kennedy’s speech ended discussion of his Catholicism? Call me cynical, but I can imagine a story about Romney’s “explanation,” complete with quotes from leaders of other faiths, disagreeing with him or accusing him of revising “real” Mormon doctrine to make it more palatable. Of course there would be quotes from other Mormons claiming he got the doctrine wrong, and the obligatory quote from something Brigham Young or Joseph Smith is claimed to have said on the same subject 150 years ago. The discussion would be a confusing mess, and voters would be no better prepared to vote for or against Romney than they were before the explanation.]

“Finally, there is the question of authority in the Church of Latter-day Saints, and of what obligations an office holder like Mr. Romney must discharge. Like the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church has a hierarchical structure in which ultimate authority is vested in one man. But unlike the pope, the church’s president is also regarded as God’s own “prophet” and “revelator.” Every sitting prophet is free to proclaim new revelations as God sees fit to send them — a form of divine direction that Mormon missionaries play as a trump card against competing faiths.”

If Woodward had read Hugh Hewitt’s book, or this very blog, he would know that Romney has specifically addressed that very subject:

“Would you ever expect a call from [LDS Church] President Hinckley or his successor?” I asked.

“No,” he emphatically replied. “Absolutely not. And I’d also note that when you take the oath of office, that is your highest oath and first responsibility. That’s true when you become governor, it’s certainly true for anyone who becomes president. When I placed my hand on . . . the Bible . . . when I was sworn in as governor . . . my highest and first responsibility was to honor my oath of office and follow the Constitution and protect the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For those sworn into national office, their highest obligation is to the nation. It would be inappropriate for Church officials to contact me and it would be less than appropriate for me to take guidance from any institution other than caring first for the oath of office.”

How many times does Romney have to say that? Hugh’s book, by the way, is a quick but informative read. Woodward ought to get himself a copy. Back to Woodward’s op-ed:

The issues above are real to many people . . .

There he goes again with that anonymous source!

The Hugh Hewitt Interview

Hugh had Woodward on his show for the better part of an hour yesterday. The entire interview is here, and I recommend it to you. Mostly it consists of Hugh trying to get a straight answer out of Woodward, and we can’t really blog about it very effectively.

As I listened to a podcast of the interview this morning, I noticed this exchange for the first time:

HH: Do you have any Mormons who are friends of yours?

KW: Yeah.

HH: Close friends?

KW: Yeah. . . . The Mormons I would tend to meet with would tend to be journalists and academics. I mean, I used to go…are you familiar with the Sunstone, the Mormon magazine?

HH: Yes. . . .

KW: All right. I’ve addressed their conference a couple of times, so you can get a different kind of Mormon at those places.

So the Mormons Woodward knows well are journalists, academics, and those who attend Sunstone conferences. There isn’t space here to describe everything I think that means, but I suspect that even members of those three groups would readily tell you that they are far from representative of most Mormons. For example, the majority of them would, I’ll wager, be much bigger fans of Harry Reid than Mitt Romney. Also, on the pages of Sunstone you will very often find criticism of the Church from what might best be described as a “liberal,” or left-leaning, point of view. In fact, the journal’s then-editor once described Sunstone to me as the voice of the “loyal opposition” within Mormonism.

That’s Woodward’s “focus group” for understanding what Mormons are like and what we really think, and it shows: Woodward said he read his comment about the Church having “the soul of a corporation” to some of his Mormon friends, and they “laughed.” Well, it’s no surprise that Mormons in that demographic group would laugh at such a comment. Some of them whom I know personally have been expressing that very sentiment for years.

(Full disclosure: I was a Sunstone staffer 30 years ago during my student days. I’m afraid I was a real slacker, and did little for the cause; I quit after a year or so because of my personal discomfort with the journal’s tone, content, and direction.)

Beyond that, this excerpt may be the most telling of the entire interview:

HH: No, but I think it’s a fairly bigoted piece that does great injury to…

KW: Well, you obviously have made that point. And I think you know, I think you’re wrong, that’s all.

HH: And so if a bunch of Mormons wrote you that they were offended by it, would you take into account…

KW: I expect someone to, yeah. I expect them to do that. I expect somebody will.

HH: And that won’t bother you?

KW: Not particularly, no. Not unless they’ve got a good argument to make, better than yours.

HH: At what point do stereotypes begin to drive religious bigotry in ways that hurt the society at large?

KW: I don’t know, because I don’t indulge in those kind of stereotypes?

HH: So what’s the difference between Mormons hiring other Mormons and Jews hoarding money? Both stereotypes. What’s the difference?

KW: Well, I don’t think Jews hoard money.

HH: So it’s just…

KW: But I do think…I know Mormons hire other Mormons.

HH: So it’s the Gospel according to Woodward?

KW: And it’s not a negative…hey, you know what? It’s not negative. It’s not negative. It’s perfectly understandable, okay?

HH: And if Mormons told you it was negative, would that matter to you?

KW: Nope.

HH: So it is the Gospel according to Woodward. . . . Are you open to the argument that maybe this was tremendously offensive to Mormons?

KW: I’m open to the argument, yeah. So what?

HH: All right. So what? I guess not. . . .

KW: I know what you think.

HH: If you went through and substituted Jew for Mormon, it would be one of the most…

KW: Oh, that’s too simple-minded. It really is too simple-minded.

HH: Why, because…

KW: There are groups…have you ever been around the Greek Orthodox?

HH: Why, are they secretive, too?

KW: They are an ethnically based Church. And it’s to be expected. Not secretive…

HH: Well, what do they do that’s…

KW: Not secretive.

HH: Are they secretive?

KW: Not secretive, no. You supplied the word, I didn’t.

HH: So what’s…

KW: Greeks, Greeks feel more comfortable with other Greeks. Greeks often, unfortunately, I’ve seen this in the orthodox world, are…they’ve had a considerable rubbing against, say, the Russian Orthodox, all right? It’s part of the history.

HH: Can you give me any…

KW: Just there. It’s there in society.

HH: Can you give me any…

KW: You seem to find this extraordinary news. I don’t.

HH: How about Irish Catholics? Give me a couple of things to go by on those?

KW: Well, they used to be, but not much anymore, because…

HH: They were drinkers, right?

KW: They’ve lost a lot of…

HH: We drank a lot.

KW: The lot of…their clannishness. Well, we did at Ignatius. [That’s Woodward’s Catholic high school in Cleveland. –Ed.] I don’t know about other places.

Well, you get the picture. Again, I have a hunch that Ken Woodward is not accustomed to close, probing, real-time analysis of his work, or challenges to his conclusions. Maybe he retired from the MSM just in time.

John adds: OK, my first comment is frustration - I am on vacation for crying out loud! This blog has a very narrow portfolio, why does stuff have to break while I am on vacation!?!?! I guess that is why God invented laptops and hotels with high speed connections. Now to get serious.

First of all, I think Woodward was born in the stone age and has stayed there. Consider this from the April 9 interview with Hewitt:

HH: What I want to talk to you about are some of the statements made in your New York Times piece today, as whether or not you personally subscribe to them. For example, Kenneth Woodward, do you personally believe that the Mormon Church is clannish?

KW: I think as a generalization, that’s true. And I don’t mean is so much negatively. If you can remember when Italians couldn’t get into an Irish union, never mind blacks getting into a white union, preserving jobs for their friends and so on, that’s a kind of thing that I’m talking about. I’m thinking about…but more importantly, look at their history. You know, they were people forged on an exodus, with a huge amount of intermarriage, a strong sense that the world was against them, and also, a Church as welfare state, the food in the basement, that kind of stuff. Now they do look after each other. I was talking to a friend of mind, a classmate, who was a National Security Advisor in Nixon’s administration. And we were talking about just that thing. They’ve got people in at a certain point, and certainly after a while, more Mormons were coming in and so on.

Our nation has spent the better part of the last century trying to overcome precisely the prejudices that Woodward seems to intimate were somehow benign and non-problematic. I find his appeal to history, even Mormon history, fascinating. It is after all very old history and yet he makes the appeal several times in the interview with Hewitt. Here is just one other example:

HH: All right, how about this line. To many Americans, Mormonism is a Church with the soul of a corporation. Do you believe that, Kenneth Woodward?

KW: Do I believe that?

HH: Yeah.

KW: I think that’s a pretty good description. I bounced it off a few Mormons, and they laughed and said yeah.

HH: Well, what do you mean by it?

KW: Oh, there is a corporate side to it. I think the communal and communitarian side that was pretty, how would you want to say, pretty radical in the 19^th Century. The old Mormonism, if you will, had issued in a very strong corporate style.

Mormons do have a unique and interesting history, but this is now not then. First of all, we addressed much of this history and how the CJCLDS has changed in the five-part series we did on Kathleen Flake’s book on the seating of Reed Smoot to the US Senate 100 years ago. If you are interested, here it is: I — II — III — IV — V. In that series we asserted and demonstrated that the CJCLDS has historical issues that are, first of all, similar to those that most creedal Christian sects have had and that like creedal Christian sects they have worked hard to overcome those issues, meaning what may have been a problem in history, is not a problem now. Bringing it up is a bit like saying Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton had big issues because they hailed from slave states.

Woodward attempts to excuse his clear bigotry by saying he was discussing what he thought was the common “perception” of Mormons, e.g.

HH: Okay, what about when you write the Mormons…

KW: Well, I don’t see the distinction you’re trying to make between secret and closed. I’m saying when things are closed, this…and what’s the verb in there, huh? Perceived.

There are still people out there that “perceive” blacks as . . . well, I can’t bring myself to write it. Which is, I think, the point. People with those “perceptions” are called bigots and we do not pass on the views of bigots as blithely and non-judgmentally as Woodward did in his op-ed or his interview with Hewitt. I mean, where do we hear from the KKK now? Mostly from Jerry Spinger and his ilk, and mostly because the KKK has descended to the level of self-parody. And yet in this instance those “perceptions” are reported as a matter of course without the ridicule, denial, or incredulity that we see in other cases thereof.

All we get are glowing pieces about Barack Obama; nobody is writing pieces about how the remaining racists in the nation perceive blacks in general and how that could be a problem for Obama. I wonder why?

One last refutation - Woodward contends that “Mormons hire Mormons.” Conveniently, yesterday’s Washington Post published a profile of the Romney campaign’s inside circle. It does not mention the religious affiliation of any of them. There is only one I know for sure is Mormon (Spencer Zwick), but there are several I know for sure are not. So, where’s the beef?

But I think the last paragraph of Hewitt’s original blog post on the Woodward op-ed may be the most telling thing written on all of this to date:

…I wonder at what point will Beltway-Manhattan elite media have to recognize that Romney has been asked often and has answered all of the “questions” raised by Mr. Woodward? It is one of the essential traits of bigotry to refuse to acquaint oneself with the easily available facts about the object of the scorn so as to nurse that scorn more easily.

More than ever this incident demonstrates that the old media is on its last legs and cannot survive. Woodward has clearly been lazy in the preparation of this piece. It seems apparent, particularly from the interview, that he did not do a stitch of original work in the writing of this piece; in his retirement he appears to have relied on his recollections and old notes to cobble something together. His appeals to “old Mormonism” seem a tacit admission to that very fact. Before new media, he could have gotten away with this, but no more.

In isolation, this piece would not seem so bad, but in the Internet age, no piece in a major newpaper exists in isolation. One of the more truly amazing things about this is that the newspaper that considers itself “American’s paper of record” is so far behind the curve here. Woodward’s piece is remarkably similar to the dozens of others we have seen and linked to on this blog over the last year. When everybody read just their local paper such pieces were not part of the news, but instead they were THE news, but now they simply have the appearance of piling on. The Old Grey Lady is reduced to attempting to have the final say instead of THE say.

In other words, the new media has exposed this latent bigotry in a new and vital way. What used to be “conventional wisdom” has in this case been exposed as collective ignorance, a decision to “refuse to acquaint oneself with the easily available facts” and bias. The key question is bias against what? Given Woodward’s history of Mormon bashing, it is hard to know for him specifically, but across the MSM it should be obvious. The bias is against conservatism far more than Mormonism, but they appear not afraid to use Romney’s faith as a tool in that effort.

The other thing that is apparent, particularly in the interview and Woodward’s appeal to “perception,” is that they want to make a case not only that Mormons are wierd, but also that Evangelicals are bigots. They think they have a “twofer” on their hands. And here the new media really shines. They no longer can function as gatekeepers, and we can get the word out that their stereotypes of Mormons and Evangelicals is just wrong. The Old Grey Lady cannot even manage the final say.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reprints | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Was It A Big Deal Or Not?

On Faith asked about the Saddleback thing and the responses are quite slow in coming in. I think that is reflective of the fact that the Civic Forum was really important in a relatively small circle.

However, it says something VERY important about Evangelical politics. USAToday points out that megachurches like Saddleback are not all that unique in their levels of political involvement. But my personal reflections today on all this center on this Blake Dvorak post at RCP’s VP Watch blog:

The two big notions floating around on the chattering circuit is that Joe Biden is up (true) and Mitt Romney is down. What’s spurred the Romney news is the pressure coming from Evangelical groups and Mike Huckabee. Both insist Romney’s religion has nothing to do with their opposition and that their concerns center around Romney’s flip-flopping on matters like abortion and same-sex marriage.

OK, let’s put aside the denials and take matters at face valu: If Romney is down it’s because of the Huckabee led pressure, and then it is because of religion, and that is where this past weekend’s forum gets important. (I am also not going to take on the main point that Dvorak makes later in his post, but I think he is wrong.)

As we analyzed yesterday, the real winner over the weekend was Rick Warren. That also means, to some extent, that the commonly touted voices that stand up for Evangelicals, Land, Dobson, Perkins, Huckabee - LOST. Warren, the weekend’s somewhat strained comments to Jack Tapper notwithstanding, has been far more circumspect on Romney and religion than the other bunch. Romney himself told me a couple of years ago that he had had several excellent meetings with Rick Warren.

The forum, by its very nature, location and host, served to marginalize the hotheads - Something we have been calling for on this blog for a very long time. John McCain’s extraordinary success in that forum paves the way for a Romney nod as Veep. The mainstream of Evangelicals - those that might be a little wary of, but hardly prejudiced against, Mormonism - now stand in front of Evangelical politics. McCain is free of having to worry about how the silly rabid bunch will react.

Here’s hoping he will act accordingly.

This; However, Will Not Help . . .

Out of Ogden/Layton Utah:

Frustrated by the treatment former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney received from the “religious right” in his run for U.S. president, a Layton historian has written a book documenting the anti-Mormon bias amidst the national GOP party.

The 244-page, softcover book, “A Different God? Mitt Romney, The Religious Right and the Mormon Question” by Craig L. Foster, lists for $24.95 and is now available online at Amazon.com and Barnes&Noble.com and is expected to reach book stores by Aug. 21.

Not being a Mormon myself, I cannot begin to tell Mormons how to feel about all that has happened, nor can I possibly deny that religious prejudice played a huge role in how the primaries went down. But having said that I think there are a couple of big mistakes that could be made in the wake of this cycle.

One would be for Mormons to play victim. Losing, even under these circumstances, is different than being victimized. Playing victim plays the same game the silly rabid bunch have played. I believe Mormons should, as African Americans should have, elevate the game. Don’t meet these people on their level.

Secondly, Mormons should not seek acknowledgment of religious claims out of this. The religious differences may never be resolved, in fact probably should not be. Large branches of orthodox Christianity will always view Mormons as worshiping a “different” God. But that is a religious question. The great American tradition is that even if that is true, it should not make a difference when seeking electoral office.

The religious and political issues must be addressed in separate manners and venues.

Lowell: Anyone can write a book, especially a softcover book with no apparent publisher. Craig Foster’s book, I suspect, will not be very widely read. Still, it is a mistake. What good does it do to point out obvious bias, especially when there are plenty of people who think that very bias is not only justified, but Godly? For every book on the Mormon side of that issue, there will be three in response on the anti-Mormon side, attacking Foster’s points with relish and self-righteous zeal.

It is foreign to Latter-day Saint culture to whine or complain, or to enshrine persecution. We do not talk much of the evil that was done to us in the mid-19th century, except in historical discussions. We are taught to pray for the enemies of our church. John is right: We should rise above the bigotry.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

About That Forum At Saddleback . . .

Needless to say, it is big religion and politics news. The transcripts are here. We have only had time to skim them and had no time to watch. Frankly, I did not think it is that important, and so far, reaction and the transcript skim is proving me right.

I did not get that excited in advance because I suspected it would not be that relevant. My suspicions were confirmed when the morning of, Jack Tapper blogged an interview with Rick Warren that included this:

I noted that Mitt Romney — thought to be on McCain’s short list for VP — did not get a lot of evangelical votes during the GOP primaries specifically because of his Mormon faith.

“What did you think of that when that was playing out?” I asked.

“Well, I think there’s a fundamental difference because evangelicalism and Mormonism,” Warren said. “There’s no doubt about it. And there’s some things that Mormons hold to that are not ‘historic Christianity’ that all Lutherans, all Methodists, all Baptists, all Pentecostals, all Catholics, Protestants [hold true].

“For instance, all Christians believe in the Trinity. Mormons deny the Trinity. So that’s a fundamental difference,” Warren said. “All Christians believe in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Mormons believe in additional books that historic orthodox Christians reject. There may have been a misunderstanding on that. But I don’t even think that’s the whole issue. I think that there are other issues involved in terms of who has had experience, who has had leadership and who understands my problems.”

Warren gave a theology answer which to my mind disqualifies him as a serious commentator or interviewer when it comes to elections and a POTUS. Please note he stops short of saying religion is a disqualifier for office - he just goes to theology instead of politics in answer to an essentially political question. Warren’s phrase “who understands my problems” is, however key.

[Lowell:  I found Warren’s response almost incomprehensible.]

In the aftermath, the Godblogsphere is just eating up the Obama-McCain joint appearance at Warren’s church.  Sadly, Evangelicals have come to view themselves in a kingmaker role and this was an opportunity to act like it. Many commentators have said the real winner in this thing is Warren, and that is astute political analysis - with this event he has clearly established himself as the new leader for Evangelicals. Beyond that this was a void.

Evangelicals are chewing it up because of tone, since they find political competition off-putting (which also means they love indecisiveness - how else could so many churches finds themselves in such messes?) and because Warren asked a lot of questions that “speak their language.” Personally, I found it a bit demeaning, as if I as an Evangelical am not intelligent enough to lift myself to the level of standard political debate.

Frankly, the whole thing was dangerously close to an identity test. It smacked of trying to get the candidates to sound like they fit the evangelical mold, at least enough to connect to Evangelical voters.

How about Evangelicals connecting to the nation?

The Economist thinks both candidates have a “religion problem,” which probably does explain why they agreed to this thing with Warren to begin with. There is a delicate line for a candidate between serving the voters, leading, and pandering. Frankly, given Evangelical behavior of late, I think more leading is called for.

Here’s The Evidence . . .

The weekend was full of stories about Romney’s evangelical problems, even for Veep:

• The NYtimes
• The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune

But my favorite story on all this was from Jonathon Martin:

Mike Huckabee told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that he’s expecting a top-tier speaking role at next month’s GOP convention.

“It would be beyond imagination if I didn’t get a prime speaking spot,” Huckabee told the paper in an interview published last Sunday. “I came in second. I would think that I’ve earned the right to be there.”

First of all, Huck needs to check the vote count again - Romney came in second, Huck just kept running after he had lost.

But all this is evidence of Evangelicals getting just a bit too big for their britches. Whether it is the guys leading the Evangelical PACs trying to sound “judicious” in their evaluations of Romney as a veep candidate, or Huckabee sounding like a petulant child that has not gotten the invitation he thinks he deserves, it is all beginning to smack of panic in the face of defeat.

The big picture is obvious. The traditional organs and leaders of the “religious right” are not just on the ropes- they have lost. In fact they are so out of it, they cannot hear the bell ringing and are swinging wildly, thinking the fight is still on. Which goes back to the political analysis of the Warren forum - he really is the clear winner and this bunch are the clear losers. Warren still has a lot to learn and needs to put some meat on the bones, but he has played this reasonably smart.

That is to say, he has stayed out of politics in general, being a friend to presidents, but being essentially apolitical - the Billy Graham route. I am still waiting for real, effective, genuine Evangelical political leadership, but in its absence I will take this approach over what we have been seeing any day of the week.

So, Which Is It?

The Washington Post thinks Evangelicals will move towards Obama. The Washington Times reports on moves to the contrary. I think it is proof the press does not get this stuff.

Going Deep . . .

Richard John Neuhaus goes into some extraordinarily deep theology on Christians, history and eschatology and in the middle of it says this:

Obviously, we’re into deep theological waters here. What Christians can say about the particulars of God’s purposes in history leaves us stuttering and tongue-tied. They can attend closely to what is revealed; they can try to read “the signs of the times;” they can study, discuss, debate, speculate, and then pray for the grace to act in the courage of their uncertainties. But at the end of the day, they say with Paul, “Now we see in a mirror darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

I cannot help but reflect that it is precisely that uncertainty that Neuhaus discusses that makes it impossible for Christians to apply religious tests to civil elective office. We just do not know the mind of God that well.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post