A Mormon Times columnist reviews recent Romney talk. [I'm sure I could find other columns on this topic if I tried.] I like Hewitt's summary of "Romney's M's" (message, money, Michigan, and Mormonism), but basically it's all a variation on the "he'd be a great candidate except for the Mormon thing" theme. Quoting the column: "For some, Romney's faith is an attraction, but for many it remains a negative." More directly, quoting a political commentator's observation: "In addition, Romney's Mormon faith was an issue for some evangelical Christians in the primaries."
Meridian Magazine has an article up by a veteran LDS pollster likening the upcoming battle over Prop 8, the proposed marriage amendment, to the War in Heaven. This takes demonizing one's opponent to a new level. I'd be tempted to call the article a new low for Meridian Mag.
At GR, a nice post on the MSM's sparse coverage of Senator Obama's passing references to the Bible. Here's how one newspaper quoted in the story summarized Obama's statement:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defended his belief in same-sex civil unions March 2 by referencing Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and then implicitly criticizing those who view Romans as a binding teaching on homosexuality.
I try to avoid politics, but current events are just too compelling. It's like trying to not watch a train wreck. The latest mini-drama is the guy who didn't read the script, Mike Huckabee. Political pundits somehow assume he's supposed to fold up shop and go home now. Huckabee shows no intention of doing so, as shown in this AP story at WaPo: "Huckabee Pledges to Stay In Race." Maybe he deserves his shot. [Update: Huckabee just took the Kansas caucuses with 60% of the vote. No surprise, but still ...]
Mitt Romney at least gave two notable speeches, "Faith in America" and his withdrawal speech. That's two more notable speeches than any other candidate has produced thus far, and he'll undoubtedly get to make a prime-time speech at the convention as well. Romney's withdrawal seems to have spurred better commentary looking back than his candidacy did when live and kicking, for example "Romney, Mormons, and me" (Boston Globe), "Romney Bid Was a Crucible for Mormons" (AP), and several posts at Article VI (linking to the same articles I'm linking to and trying to find meaning for A6 without Romney in the race).
The most visible story is on today's front page of the Wall Street Journal, "Mormons Dismayed by Harsh Spotlight." It's just full of interesting observations and quotes. Here are a few of them, with my comments.
Politics just ain't what it used to be. Here's a headline from a Reuter's article on Thursday's Republican debate in South Carolina: "Romney Attacks McCain at Republican Debate." What'd he do, throw a chair at him? Call him nasty names? No, here's what the article said he said:
I know that there are some people who think, as Sen. McCain did, he said, you know, some jobs are leaving Michigan and they're not coming back. I disagree. I'm going to fight for every single job, Michigan, South Carolina, every state in this country, we're going to fight for jobs and make sure our future is bright.
For a long overdue online essay of the week, you simply must go read the New York Times Magazine essay on Mormonism and politics, "What Is It About Mormonism?", by Noah Feldman, a Harvard law prof. First line: "Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee." Ah yes, it should be, shouldn't it?
Celebrated author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian judicial panels on charges linked to his book “America Alone."
The book, a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding apace proves his point.
Reassuring thought for the day: No matter who wins the election, at least we're not Canada.
Over 300 people have died due to violence in the wake of Kenya's Dec. 27 presidential election. But the SL Trib reports that LDS missionaries in the area are safe and accounted for. It adds, "In similar volatile situations, such as a 2002 prison uprising in Bangu, Brazil, LDS officials typically require missionaries to stay inside their apartments and discontinue all proselytizing activities until peace has been restored." Yes, I think missionaries in Kenya should stay inside their apartments for a few days. And they should forego any efforts to teach young men carrying machetes until, say, after Easter. For more details on what it's like to lose an election in Kenya (or to win one, for that matter) read this post at Get Religion.
Over at Straight and Narrow Blog, Jettboy posted the entire text of a speech JFK gave in Salt Lake City on September 26, 1963, in the Tabernacle. The photo I posted appears to be from that very event: President Kennedy in the center, LDS President David O. McKay on the left, and Utah Senator Frank Moss on the right.
Mitt met and mastered his Mormon moment, it seems. There are hundreds of responses (see this T&S post for a nice selection). Here are a few worth considering. Neuhaus at First Things wrote, "It was a powerful speech powerfully delivered." Yes, it made quite an impression on many viewers and readers. It sounded presidential, not a feature always on display in the rough-and-tumble primary season. Neuhaus also mentions Romney's use of the term "political religion." I reviewed a whole book on that topic a while back.
Much of the commentary and criticism swirling around Mitt Romney and the religion issue seems to take as its starting point the assumption that there is a single Mormon view on any particular issue, decided by LDS leaders and accepted by the LDS membership. Too bad there isn't a Mormon view on particular issues. That kind of kills the theory.
There's a post at the Religion Clause with links to stories on the new Illinois school prayer law. The Illinois legislature overrode the governor's veto to enact a law requiring teachers to begin the day with a moment of prayer silence. If we can't legislate a moment of prayer, then at least legislate a moment of silence ... does this really make sense? Does anything about school prayer make sense? Learn at school and pray at home or in church. This seems like the way things should work.
It's coming, according to Robert Novak. While a few hundred thousand dedicated Mormons will tune in to hear speeches by General Authorities this coming weekend, a hundred million might tune in to Mitt Romney's speech in a month or two or three in which he tries to explain to the American electorate that it's okay to vote for a Mormon for President. He doesn't have to explain that it's okay to vote for a woman or a Jew or an African-American — Americans are already okay with voting for those candidates if they are, in other respects, their preferred candidate. But being Mormon seems to be a real stretch for some voters and for almost all journalists. We'll all share in the result, so let's hope Mitt rises to the occasion when he faces the Mormon Moment. Can't think of any other person better fitted for the task.
Take a look at Religious Discrimination 101, a post at Get Religion (the most readable site about religion on the Net). It discusses a Washington Post article reporting recent survey results about the way college professors think about their students. In one study, "53 percent of its sample of 1,200 college and university faculty members said they have 'unfavorable' feelings toward evangelical Christians." My, that's only a little bit higher than the percentage of Evangelical Christians who report having "unfavorable" feelings about Mormons. I guess what goes around, comes around.
It looks like Romney's Mormon Moment might be just over the horizon, according to GR's latest post, Romney goes to Regent, and the linked media story. It's there at Regent Univeristy that Romney will probably attempt the impossible: make a crowd of über-Evangelicals happy with a Mormon candidate. I've been reading about Romney's "Mormon problem" for months now, without a single reporter pointing out this very obvious fact: He doesn't have a Mormon problem.
I spent all my computer time answering email, so I'm just going to wing it and do a quick comedy post. Politics, comedy, same thing these days. John McCain announced he is running for President ... on the David Letterman show. I mean, where else would a serious politician make such an announcement? How else to show America that you've got the right stuff to exercise presidential judgment and control the secret launch codes that can destroy civilization as we know it inside thirty minutes than trading quips with Letterman?
There's a nice article at the Deseret News titled "Romney tackling issue of his religion head-on" (by a couple of New York Times reporters). Looks like Romney wants to hit the issue early and get it out of the way if he can. That's an obvious strategy, of course; the trick is pulling it off. He's courting Evangelical leaders: "He has set up a meeting later this month in Florida with 100 ministers and religious broadcasters. That gathering follows what was by all accounts a successful meeting at his home last fall with evangelical leaders, including Jerry Falwell; Franklin Graham, who is a son of the Rev. Billy Graham; and Paula White, a popular preacher." I think he's probably got more to fear from other Republican candidates exploiting the issue than from any statements by Evangelicals themselves.
I've been watching the election returns this evening — it's all too depressing to blog about anything meaningful tonight. Montana, for example, has apparently elected a lentil farmer with a crew cut, giving the Democratic Party a majority in the Senate. Not just a lentil farmer, an organic lentil farmer! I will show my disapproval by boycotting lentils (of any kind) for the next ... oh, let's say five years. After two hours of watching talking heads hold forth on what "the American people" were saying in this election, I couldn't take it anymore. If I weren't Mormon, I suppose I'd go out drinking. Instead I clicked over to Military Channel and watched a show on mortars and howitzers for an hour. That cheered me up. I guess I'll muddle through.
Yes, it happens. I was getting the impression that reporters were simply unable to recognize present religious-based terrorism as something besides a communication problem. Then I stumbled across this: "Head-in-the-Sand Liberals," an opinion piece in the LA Times by author Sam Harris. Okay, he's an author, not a reporter, but he does claim to be a liberal who has come to his senses on this issue. First, his take on liberals:
On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.
Then, on Islamic terrorism:
A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.
Great word, which Wikipedia uses as follows: "Islamofascism is a neologism and political epithet used to induce an association of the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism." Yes, I know the Islamic world did not invent fascism and that Eurofascism came first, but that's the whole point. Think of Mussolini. First fascists seem like clowns; then they're someone else's problem; then you're wondering where they got such nice missles. Interesting historical analogy. Pundits are starting to catch on.
Get Religion has a post reviewing a Washington Times story on Mitt Romney's recent visit to California. He was a big hit at the California Republican Convention, with one attendee declaring, "He's got the charisma Kennedy had and the morals we wish Kennedy would have had."
So how is it that folks can admire Romney's integrity and morality but not make the connection linking his character to his also being a practicing Mormon? Why is the religious label such a negative for Evangelicals despite the obvious fact that his Mormon religion is a big positive for Romney himself and that it therefore contributes to what most people seem to like about him? If he passes the character test with flying colors (and Evangelicals seem to feel that way), why should the religious label be such a big deal? Voting is not a religious act, yet they speak about voting for Romney like it is the moral equivalent of offering a pagan sacrifice to Caesar.
The post has links to three other GR posts on Romney — they're doing a real nice job there tracking how the media covers Romney. The media has been fair with Romney and he is connecting nicely with the voters. Maybe when the primaries start rolling and debates kick in, Evangelicals will start thinking more like citizens and less like sectarians. As long as Romney doesn't say he was brainwashed into supporting the war in Iraq. That would be bad.
Good fences make good neighbors. Thus did that famous American diplomat Robert Frost esoterically communicate to the nations of the world the formula for helping international neighbors who just can't get along (say, Israel and some of its neighbors) to at least avoid open conflict. Alas, something there is that doesn't love a wall.
In the David O. McKay era, a spectre was indeed haunting Mormonism — the spectre of Communism. And it wasn't just whispered about in the halls, it was shouted from the podium, particularly by Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, as recounted in "Confrontation with Communism," Chapter 12 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (all quotes are from Chapter 12 of the book). It was depicted as a conspiracy to undermine everything good about America and the Church. As we now know, it turned out that nationalism and ethnic strife eventually swamped political Communism. But no one knew that's how it was going to turn out. For most Americans and the vast majority of Mormons during the McKay years (1951-70), Communism was the avowed enemy of the West, immovably opposed to truth, justice, and the American way.
With the DSM Amendment off the radar, I was hoping to get off the topic of politics. Then I ran across a June 4 op-ed at the Trib entitled Mixing Religion and Politics (hat tip Snail Hollow Gazette). It relates the frustration of Democratic politicians like Harry Reid with the pro-amendment media event at the White House earlier this week, featuring, among other religious leaders, LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson. Despite the seemingly conscious attempt of the recent First Presidency letter to avoid an official LDS endorsement of the amendment (it only asked Mormons to "express themselves on this urgent matter"), the public appearance by Elder Nelson at a political event sponsoring the amendment, plus earlier official statements by LDS leaders, easily leads to the view that LDS leaders have, in fact, taken an official political position that is now required of members.
I haven't seen anyone post and comment on this story from the Trib: Will LDS flee GOP if Mitt gets shelled? The following scenario is not at all improbable: (1) Evangelicals publicly trash Mitt, who gracefully retires from the race; (2) the Democrats manage to nominate a candidate palatable to most Mormons; and (3) Harry Reid gives a rousing prime-time speech at the Democratic convention reminding "people of faith" and those who support "family values" that Democrats have values, too. And let's throw in (4) Reid and President Faust are photographed strolling down State Street on their way to a friendly "social visit" lunch a couple of days later.
The proposed DSM amendment (for "different sex marriage") is still bouncing around the media and the Bloggernacle, showing how unexpectedly diverse is the response by LDS rank and file to the recent First Presidency statement read over LDS pulpits last Sunday and posted at LDS.org.
To: Senator Dianne Feinstein, US Senate
Senator Barbara Boxer, US Senate From: Dave at DMI, Registered California Voter Re: Vote "Yes" on the proposed marriage amendment
Last Sunday a letter was read from the pulpit in my local LDS congregation encouraging members of the LDS Church to write their US senators and express their opinion regarding the proposed federal marriage amendment that is coming up for a vote shortly. This request forced me to consider the good arguments on both sides of this sharply disputed issue. I found the lengthy but enlightening online discussion on the topic at several LDS weblogs quite useful: posts at the timely if not seasonal Times & Seasons; the anything but common By Common Consent; the ornately bannered Baron of Deseret; the reliably conservative Messenger & Advocate; and the reliably even more conservative Millennial Star all make for productive reading. For me, it's a close issue, but I encourage you to vote in favor of the amendment.
That's the title of a WSJ op-ed piece by James Taranto taking yet another run at the "Can Mitt get nominated?" question. It's clear he has a shot at being elected, the only real question is whether Evangelical Republicans will swallow their sectarian prejudice and nominate him. That's exactly where Taranto comes down on it, noting in his last sentence: "If Mr. Romney runs for president, it may test the proposition that the religious right is an issues-based movement as opposed to a sectarian one." So it's not just Mitt Romney who faces a defining political moment next year, it's also politically engaged Evangelicals.
[9/9 Update: GetReligion posted a second, even more provocative look at this issue: The Exaltation of Mitt Romney. And there are some interesting comments, too. This story is heating up fast!]
Following up my earlier post on Romney's Evangelical problem, I'll highlight two posts from my newly-installed blog feeds on the left sidebar. GetReligion (run by several religion journalists) posted An Evangelical Problem?, discussing Amy Sullivan's recent article arguing that Romney will have real problems with Evangelical voters if he decides to run for president. The comments to the blog post are worth reading, too. The Revealer also posted a short piece with the eye-catching title Mormons Drink Christian Baby Blood, Don't They? Their point is that mainstream media reporters have discounted Romney's religious problem with Evangelicals because they don't take conservative religious leaders (who make little attempt to hide their unhappiness with Mormonism) seriously or consider their opinions to be newsworthy. At The Revealer's main page, the story was at the top of their "Today" column. Personally, I think "likeability" drives more of the average voter's response than most pundits allow. There's nothing to prevent many Evangelical voters from saying to themselves, "I still don't like Mormons, but I like Romney and I'll vote for him."
After Theory Terry Eagleton on whatever it is that comes after postmodernism. My Post
Experiments in Ethics A moral philosopher's surprisingly entertaining critique of traditional philosophical ethics using modern experimental data. • My post
Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique The prolific astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin reviews where Earth came from, why it is here, and how it will end (in a rain of cometary chunks from the Oort Cloud in about a million years). Read all about it in my post The Fate of the Earth.
Ancient Israelite Religion Susan Niditch explores myth, ritual, experience, and ethics in the Hebrew Bible and using surviving archeological artifacts, revealing a surprisingly diverse ancient Israelite religion. • My Post
Davies: The Mormon Culture of Salvation Uses a variety of models to look at LDS doctrine and cultural practice related to death and salvation, with a lengthy consideration of the "world religion" question. My Post • Pub Note
Recent Comments