The Ugliness to Come
I am not happy at the prospect that Mitt Romney will be the Republican Party nominee in 2012. I regard with horror his embrace of Romneycare, his willingness to tout that tyrannical measure as “a model for the other states” and “a model for the nation,” his misrepresentation of what it means for the people of Massachusetts, and his statement in June of this year – well after the anthropogenic global warming campaign had been exposed as a scam – that
I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.
And I don’t buy the argument, made by a Romney supporter on this site, that statements like this one constitute “tepid lip service to warmism” on the part of a man who is opposed to government action in this sphere – for this amounts to saying, “Trust him. He’s lying.” No politician can say what he has said without, at the same time, recommending government action. The latter is implicit in the former. I would like to see the Republican Party nominate a candidate opposed in principle to the individual mandate, willing to denounce junk science, hostile to social engineering, and eager to roll back in every way feasible the administrative entitlements state -- and I find it hard to believe that Mitt Romney is such a man.
It is one thing, however, to criticize Governor Romney on the basis of his record in and out of office and on the basis of the political stands he has taken. It is another thing to inject religion into the debate. I do not know a great deal about Mormon doctrine, and I am not much interested in exploring the details. I do know a fair number of Mormons, however. I have spoken at Brigham Young University on a number of occasions in the past, and I am scheduled to do so again on Thursday, 3 November (I will also be giving a paper at Yale University on Monday, 31 October). I am sure that there are scoundrels who are Mormons. Every other faith with which I am familiar has its fair share. But the Mormons I have met are an admirable lot. The men are manly; the women are feminine; and they are all thoughtful. I do not fully know how the Mormon Church does this. But my experience is that it forms men and women of good character – and that is the only regard in which I think it legitimate to weigh Mitt Romney’s religion when judging him as a potential Republican Presidential nominee. I wish that the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, my own denomination, was as effective as the Mormon Church appears to be in the moral formation of its members, and I suspect that we have a thing or two to learn from the Mormons.
I was not surprised that Robert Jeffress, a Baptist pastor from Texas who is a Rick Perry supporter, injected the religious question into the debate. There is bad blood between Mormons and evangelical Christians; and, in the 2008 race, Mike Huckabee, to his shame, exploited those resentments. Nor was I surprised that the comedian Bill Maher raised the matter in his routine at George Washington University on Saturday night. He is notorious as an anti-religious bigot.
But I would not have thought that Maureen Dowd – who was reared a Catholic and is old enough to remember the anti-Catholic bigotry displayed by some evangelical Protestant ministers in 1960, when John F. Kennedy was a Presidential candidate – should have contributed to this. But contribute she did in yesterday’s New York Times.
I will not dignify her piece by quoting from it. To be frank, her willingness to stir this witch’s brew makes me sick. You can and should read it with care yourself – for it is a portent of the ugliness that is to come. If Mitt Romney is our nominee – as, I suspect, he will be – Barack Obama and those within the establishment media who made up what one member of Journolist so accurately described in 2008 as “the unofficial campaign” are going to do everything within their power to fan the embers of religious bigotry in this country.
I would like to think that this would have no great effect. To this end, we and others like us should do everything that we can to shame into silence not only those in our own midst, such as Robert Jeffress, but also the Bill Mahers and the Maureen Dowds of the world. If Governor Romney is to be found wanting by Republicans or by the American electorate, it should be on the basis of his record as a businessman, his political record as Governor of Massachusetts, and his public statements – and not on the basis of the faith of his fathers.
Herman Cain and Rick Perry, the time is now. You and your supporters could do yourselves and your country no end of good by denouncing Bill Maher and Maureen Dowd! The only legitimate questions are: what sort of man is Mitt Romney, what is his record of accomplishment, and what does he really think about the issues before the country. The theology of the Mormon Church is politically irrelevant.
- Comment (112)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Colin B Lane
Not sure what you're prescribing as the remedy for this? The fact that hateful lefties will attack aspects of his religious faith does not make it acceptable for us to do so. As mentioned when responding to the Jeremiah Wright example, unless some clear linkage between his faith and his capacity to govern this country is made, we should shout down these kinds of attacks with force.
The South Park parody is actually incredibly even handed (and factual). It doesn't pull punches on Mormon history, but is quite generous to it's modern practitioners.
I'm by no means hoping to incite hate, I'm just hoping people will educate themselves. If we are going to nominate Romney, in part because of how palatable he is to the general public, then it does matter how his religious convictions will be received by the general public, in the same way Perry's outspoken faith matters.
Edited on October 20, 2011 at 6:49pmJun '11
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Sister: First, the majority of these posts suffer from the lack of an agreed upon definition of "Christian." Without that, it's pretty difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
As for the link in the quoted post below, I would encourage you to watch it, if you are unwilling to do further research. Do we want a president who believes that Adam and Eve lived in Missouri? Or maybe, he doesn't believe that, but likes the family values aspect of the religion. Which is it? To me it matters.
Beasley:
Edited on Oct 20 at 08:39 am
Oct 20 at 9:33am
Whom you vote for to be President of the United States is an intensely personal decision that includes many factors. I would submit that one of these factors should not be where someone believes Adam and Eve lived, any more than it should be whether a candidate believes that an itinerant carpenter from Nazareth was/was not the savior of the world (a test that would disqualify either all Christians or all Jews from ever being elected President). I think the Constitution may even have something to say about religious tests for public office....
Dec '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Colin B Lane
Whom you vote for to be President of the United States is an intensely personal decision that includes many factors. I would submit that one of these factors should not be where someone believes Adam and Eve lived, any more than it should be whether a candidate believes that an itinerant carpenter from Nazareth was/was not the savior of the world (a test that would disqualify either all Christians or all Jews from ever being elected President). I think the Constitution may even have something to say about religious tests for public office.... · Oct 20 at 9:55am
I absolutely agree, but whether it should matter is somewhat immaterial, because you can't control how people factor their decision one way or the other.
However, I do think it will matter to people, in much the same way the question of whether the earth is 6000 or 4 billion years old matters. As a country, we've disqualified people for less.
Edited on October 20, 2011 at 7:07pmMay '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
I haven't read Dowd's piece. I can't bring myself to register with the NYT. But I agree with Samwise. Conservatives should take great care to avoid calling "bigotry!" whenever a person's beliefs are questioned--all the more when that person is running for office.
1) It's too much like PC speech stifling. Aren't we in favor of open discourse? Don't we acknowledge a crucial difference between bigotry and rational critique?
2) It tends in the direction of subjectivism (as opposed to pluralism), by insinuating that religion has no objective content, and is nothing more and nothing other than a question of private opinion.
3) Calling questions of theology and dogma out of bounds will undermine our ability to deal in a forthright way with the issues relating to Islam and its tensions with republicanism (small r) that are becoming more and more urgent in our society.
4) Whether we like it or not, those questions and issues will be raised, and the media will encourage it. Bigotry that gets Dems elected is fine, just as racism, violence, tax-cheating, sexual harassment, etc. are only wrong when committed by Republicans.
Jun '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Colin B Lane
I think the Constitution may even have something to say about religious tests for public office.... · Oct 20 at 9:55am
This is about who may run for and be elected to public office. This does not mean that as an individual I may not consider a candidate's religion when I go to the polls.
May '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Here's how I think team Romney should handle questions about his faith:
Look, I'm running for President, not Pastor-in-Chief. My role will be to faithfully execute the office according to the law and the Constitution. If you want to know what kind of President I'll be, examine my record, my governing philosophy, my plan, and the moral values I live by. If you want to know how my faith will influence my way of acting in office, look again at my record, and at the record of fellow-Mormons like Senator Orin Hatch.
If you want to have a theological debate about this or that dogma, I suggest we postpone that for another time and another place. In America, we don't approve of religious tests for office.
Edited on October 20, 2011 at 7:18pmMay '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Western Chauvinist: From NYT, Prominent Pastor Calls Romney's Church a Cult:
Also, I'm a little surprised to find Catholicism referred to as a "denomination" by you. I've always considered the Church to be the trunk from which the other forms (denominations) have branched. Am I wrong or just nitpicking? · Oct 20 at 8:23am
Evangelical Protestants like me would very respectfully suggest to our esteemed Catholic brethren that Anglicans may have "branched", given the interesting origins of the C of E, but the rest of us moved back to the Apostolic origins, and arising then from what we perceive as First Principles.
Re: The Ugliness to Come
They do, they do.
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Samwise Gamgee
Paul A. Rahe
If we focus on theology, we focus on what divides us, and we are apt to be scornful of others who do not share our religious beliefs.
This statement surprises me Professor. You were right to scorn Mitch Daniels when he suggested to put social issues aside for the purposes of unity. But when I suggest exploration of a man's theology, you suggest we put it aside, least it cause division.
The key here, as Fox man alluded to above, is to have solid facts, and not misconceptions of a theology that guide us in a discussion. The Catholics do not follow the pope rather than Christ, though this is a common misconception.
At this stage, divisions matter, in so far as they are distinctions. Distinguishing potential candidates from each other is vital. This time next year though, we will have no problem agreeing upon the need to avoid divisions. · Oct 20 at 9:09am
A denomination's moral teaching might be pertinent. Its theology is not.
Jan '11
Re: The Ugliness to Come
What annoys me about using religion as a yardstick for a candidate's political beliefs is that it presumes that we can surmise or deduce (correctly) anything from it.
Why try to deduce anything about Mitt's political beliefs by speculating on his religion? Instead, why don't we just ask him about his political beliefs directly? Seems to me that we'd learn more through a direct approach than engaging in amateur theology.
Edited on October 20, 2011 at 7:32pmRe: The Ugliness to Come
Sister: First, the majority of these posts suffer from the lack of an agreed upon definition of "Christian." Without that, it's pretty difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
As for the link in the quoted post below, I would encourage you to watch it, if you are unwilling to do further research. Do we want a president who believes that Adam and Eve lived in Missouri? Or maybe, he doesn't believe that, but likes the family values aspect of the religion. Which is it? To me it matters.
Beasley: Some may say that this is below the civility level of Ricochet, but I would recomend that anyone interested watch the episode of SouthPark titled "All about the Mormons." It's a 22 minute history of the church. It is not flattering, but it is not fictional either. It cherry picks things many would refer to as absurdities, related to the church's founding.
Edited on Oct 20 at 08:39 am
Oct 20 at 9:33am
Why should anyone care where a Presidential candidate thinks Adam and Eve lived? We rightly care in what direction he is going to take the country.
Re: The Ugliness to Come
katievs:
1) It's too much like PC speech stifling. Aren't we in favor of open discourse? Don't we acknowledge a crucial difference between bigotry and rational critique?
2) It tends in the direction of subjectivism (as opposed to pluralism), by insinuating that religion has no objective content, and is nothing more and nothing other than a question of private opinion.· Oct 20 at 10:04am
Katie, your no. 2 is one of the principles on which this country is built -- that religion is a matter of private opinion. Not subjectivisim, to be sure, and no denial that there is an objective truth. But a conviction that politics and religious belief are best kept apart. I will reply to no. 3 below.
Jun '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
This is the problem of definitions again. What is a Christian? What is a cult? What is a Christian cult? What is the Church? Is there a trunk, and if so, which church is it? Which church(es) can rightly claim to be the church of the Apostles?
I may disagree with a candidate (and still vote for him) about how he answers these questions. In fact, I may not even care. But just how far out of the realm of rational thought (according to my tiny brain) can a person's theology be before I will refuse to vote for him?
Re: The Ugliness to Come
katievs:
3) Calling questions of theology and dogma out of bounds will undermine our ability to deal in a forthright way with the issues relating to Islam and its tensions with republicanism (small r) that are becoming more and more urgent in our society. · Oct 20 at 10:04am
Wrong. The difficulty posed by Islam has little or nothing to do with theology and dogma. It has to do with a refusal on the part of Muslims to accept that, in a modern, liberal political community, religion is a private matter. By attempting to enforce Holy Law on the rest of us, they make religion public.
Mormons do not do that, and the moral code they preach is admirable. Other aspects of Mormonism may be of interest and concern to us as human beings but not as citizens. There is a reason why we do not have a religious test.
Re: The Ugliness to Come
katievs: Here's how I think team Romney should handle questions about his faith:
Look, I'm running for President, not Pastor-in-Chief. My role will be to faithfully execute the office according to the law and the Constitution. If you want to know what kind of President I'll be, examine my record, my governing philosophy, my plan, and the moral values I live by. If you want to know how my faith will influence my way of acting in office, look again at my record, and at the record of fellow-Mormons like Senator Orin Hatch.
If you want to have a theological debate about this or that dogma, I suggest we postpone that for another time and another place. In America, we don't approve of religious tests for office. · Oct 20 at 10:15am
Edited on Oct 20 at 10:18 am
I agree.
Jun '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Paul A. Rahe
By attempting to enforce Holy Law on the rest of us, they make religion public.
ct 20 at 10:42am
But isn't this their theology and dogma?
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Sister: This is the problem of definitions again. What is a Christian? What is a cult? What is a Christian cult? What is the Church? Is there a trunk, and if so, which church is it? Which church(es) can rightly claim to be the church of the Apostles?
I may disagree with a candidate (and still vote for him) about how he answers these questions. In fact, I may not even care. But just how far out of the realm of rational thought (according to my tiny brain) can a person's theology be before I will refuse to vote for him? · Oct 20 at 10:39am
I would vote for an atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim if I was persuaded that he would take the country in the right direction. I would be delighted to have a Mormon President, as I was delighted to have an African-American President. Ours is a country open to all religions (and even a lack of religion). What we properly care about when we vote is where we will be taken.
May '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Paul A. Rahe
katievs:
1) It's too much like PC speech stifling. Aren't we in favor of open discourse? Don't we acknowledge a crucial difference between bigotry and rational critique?
2) It tends in the direction of subjectivism (as opposed to pluralism), by insinuating that religion has no objective content, and is nothing more and nothing other than a question of private opinion.· Oct 20 at 10:04am
Katie, your no. 2 is one of the principles on which this country is built -- that religion is a matter of private opinion. Not subjectivisim, to be sure, and no denial that there is an objective truth. But a conviction that politics and religious belief are best kept apart. I will reply to no. 3 below. · Oct 20 at 10:38am
This is not my understanding. The separation of church and state (which I endorse completely) does not mean that religion is to be relegated to the private sphere.
May '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Paul A. Rahe
The difficulty posed by Islam has little or nothing to do with theology and dogma. It has to do with a refusal on the part of Muslims to accept that, in a modern, liberal political community, religion is a private matter.
Their religion does not permit the separation of church and state. That's the problem.
Does Mormonism have any problematic doctrines? If it does, I'd like to know it.
I don't think it at all wrong or unreasonable for Protestants who, earlier in our history, were suspicious of Catholics and our doctrine of papal infallibility to raise questions and concerns about whether it was compatible with democracy. They had a right to know.
Catholics running for office in a predominantly Protestant country did well to give explanations and assurances on such points.
Edited on October 20, 2011 at 7:58pmDec '10
Re: The Ugliness to Come
Paul A. Rahe
Why should anyone care where a Presidential candidate thinks Adam and Eve lived? We rightly care in what direction he is going to take the country. · Oct 20 at 10:33am
I think it has far less to do with the religious merits of one particular theology or another, and more to do with how reasonable the beliefs a person subscribes to are.
Yes Bill Maher and his ilk will lambaste anyone's religious belief regardless of origin. The rub is how well those criticism stick with the general public. Accosting someone for believing in a supernatural deity is too common to gain traction. However, if a person believes that the earth is only 6000 years old, then they are deemed "not rational" by modern scientific standards and all their decision making comes into question on that basis.
It's not about one particular theology vs. another, but what a person has rationally accepted as truth vs. what is accepted by the general public.
Edited on October 20, 2011 at 8:03pm