Christian Backstabbing

I suppose I could come up with a mellower title, but hey, this is blogging. Go read an online essay from a couple of weeks ago at PowerBlog entitled "Hugh Hewitt and the Mormon Question." Hewitt is telling everyone who will listen that Evangelicals who go after Romney on religious grounds are setting themselves up for other politicians — a fairly opportunistic bunch, these politicians — to go after them , the Evangelical Christians, on religious grounds. I'll bet half the country would agree with the following statement: "If you can't trust a Mormon in the White House, what makes you think you can trust an Evangelical Christian?" Would you? Evangelicals ought to just shut up and vote. Or at least just shut up.

Evangelicals are blissfully ignorant of the degree to which they are as vulnerable to religious demagoging as is Romney. Remember the noise about Ashcroft? Remember James Watt? He was a Secretary of the Interior under Reagan who was accused of implementing a "rape the land" program based in part on his fervently Evangelical religious beliefs. So be careful who you backstab — it could turn out to be yourself. [Five bonus points to anyone who can put a little more poetical punch into that little quip.]

Other recent pieces on the Romney issue: Get Religion's Scrutiny and Opportunity; an SL Trib piece by Peggy Fletcher Stack that considers how all the publicity on the Romney issue will affect the Church; just about everything posted at Article VI Blog, which, if nothing else, has made us all a little more familiar with "no religious test" clause of Article VI; and Nate's "Are Mormons American?" at T&S.

Comments

[danithew]

Evangelicals ... are as vulnerable to religious demagoguing as is Romney.

Excellent point.

[Seth R.]

I sort of made this point on a Romney discussion over at "Mere Comments Blog" back in September. Here's the text:

"I think Romney's candidacy need only be a referendum on Evangelical acceptance of Mormonism if the Evangelicals choose to make it one.

If you guys are willing to drop the issue and "vote for the man" not the religion, this "Mormon question" in election politics will remain largely a figment of the liberal media's imagination. They are the ones, after all, who are pushing the concept most insistently right now.

I'm a Mormon and I realize that many readers here may not like certain things about my own brand of Christianity. Fair enough. There are things I don't like about your brand either. But I think we ought to keep this election away from denominational litmus tests - for the "Christian Right's" sake as much as anyone's.

I hope you realize that you're being set-up here. The mainstream media would absolutely LOVE to see Evangelicals loudly and publicly reject Romney's candidacy on what are clearly religious grounds. All liberals would love to see the supposed myth that the "Christian Right" is an "issues-focused movement" exploded decisively. They've been looking for proof that the Christian Right is "about the issues" in name only, but is truly a solely religious animal.

What better opportunity than a candidate who has the appearance of meshing with the Christian Right on every "issue" - whose only real downside is his denomination? You mention that he has some liberal voting background, but that really depends on how Romney's IMAGE plays out over the next few years doesn't it?

I'll say it again. You are being set-up.

If "Evangelicals" aren't careful, they could really lose a lot of political credibility here."

[Dave]

No sooner do I post than a new Romney story appears: Romney A Social Conservative? Yes! at Hewitt's site. Just in case you couldn't find enough to read about the impending Romney candidacy.

[Dave]

Oh, I'll be on blog holiday for a couple of weeks. I'm closing down comments on the remaining open threads. I'll start with a fresh batch of posts on January 1, along with a new set of Christmas books on the Featured Books list, etc.

Happy Holidays to all. If you must comment on something, you'll just have to email me.