Mormon moments.
December 6, 2007, 12:53 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Quick round-up before lunch: In case you missed it, check out Ken Woodward’s perceptive op-ed on Romney (published before the Big Speech). Commentary collection courtesy of Andrew Sullivan right here. Also have a look at Mathew Schmalz’s Commonweal piece, “Meet the Mormons.”
It remains to be seen if the Big Speech will placate Evangelicals’ concerns about Mormonism and will counter the Huckabee gains in Iowa. I tend to doubt the speech will have much effect on either.
I found the following part of the speech interesting, however:
“I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.”
This quote has a certain poetic quality, but I find it ironic that Romney seems to have had more personal experiences involving other religions than those of us who are not Mormons could hope to have, short of conversion, with Mormonism itself. From a comparative religions perspective, I’d enjoy being able to observe Mormon religious services, but such services, and Mormon temples themselves, are out of bounds for non-Mormons. More than the theology that underpins Mormonism, it is the secrecy (liturgical, financial, etc.) that pervades the religion that troubles me the most.
Reading the speech, I had the feeling this is a political blather moment in a presidential campaign facing rough waters in the Sea of Huckabee.
Robert Novak has a column in the WaPost today that suggests Romney’s advisors were less than thrilled that he decided to do this now and to write it himself. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120502236.html
I don’t see why the speech will make much difference one way or the other, but then I’m not a Mormon or an Evangelical–in any case, I’m not voting for Romney.
Much too much is being made about religion in Huckabee’s rise over Romney in Iowa. This smacks of a case of the media trying to influence reality instead of reporting what is happening on the ground, especially in light of the many debates. Now, I am not so bold as to suggest that religion plays no role in this electoral trend among Republicans. I just believe that it is not the main reason. A lot of it has to do both with personality (i.e., likeability) and perceived authenticity. A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll suggest as much. Here is a piece from the L.A. Times piece: “. . . Romney has not overcome a record of shifting views on abortion and other social issues. His failure to present a clear picture of his faith and its role in his life appears to be just one part of a broader challenge: proving to GOP voters that he is being straightforward with them.
“Romney’s predicament is underscored in the new poll, which found that he ranked last when Republican voters were asked which of the top-tier GOP candidates were ‘best at saying what they believe, rather than saying what they think the voters want to hear.’ Just 8 percent said Romney was best at saying what he believes.” Whereas, Huckabee, by contrast, leads Republican candidates with 20% of respondents agreeing that he is best at saying what he believes.
The religious issue compounds this problem because 51% of respondents to another poll do not know what Mormons believe, but are somewhat suspicious of an organization they perceive as being somewhat secretive. Therefore, if Romney wants to overcome his religious problem, he needs to talk about LDS distinctives, not the pragmatic “At the end of day, we all pretty much believe the same thing, at least politically.” I think this need is further highlighted by Kenneth Woodward great NY Times piece, to which Grant draws attention, in which he debunks the idea that there is a neat correlation between JFK’s Houston speech and Mitt’s College Station speech. If Romney thinks this, he is a poor politician in need of a new team. When campaigning you have fight what you see.
I find it odd, if not downright ironic, that a candidate who gives a speech on the need for religious tolerance is the only candidate to state publicly that he preclude a Muslim from a being cabinet secretary on the basis of his/her Islamic faith! So, perhaps he is a bad politician with a tin ear.
Mormon services ARE NOT out of bounds for non-LDS. Anyone can go to a Sunday ward service. What you cannot do, however, is enter a temple without a temple recommend from the local bishop. Non-LDS do not get those. LDS who are not “in good standing” (usually this means that they are not up to speed on their tithing) also are excluded from temple services.
Exception: when a new temple is built and before it is consecrated to religious purposes, it is open to the public. No services are held then, but the place is available for all looky-lous.
No, I am not a Mormon, but learned a lot about them years ago.
It’s a cheap shot, but all I can think of is that wonderful line from Lloyd Bentsen in the 1988 debate with Dan Quayle. “I knew Jack Kennedy….”
According to Newsweek, the HuckChuck ad Grant posted has also had a discernible effect on Huckabee’s political fortunes in Iowa.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/73272
While I enjoyed, and agreed with, Ken Woodward’s piece, I think the Kennedy and Romney events share a disturbing core truth–that both candidates feel they must attempt to make themselves religiously presentable to the rest of America in order to get elected. They are responding to rank prejudice. Granted, Romney and all the other Republicans invited this because they like to cloak themselves and their campaigns in religiosity. But basically he is having to convince Americans, and in particular Evangelical Christians, that Mormons can be trusted. I hold no brief for Mormons, though some of my best friends…as they say. Yet the gorilla in the room is religious bigotry. Doesn’t matter if the candidate is Mormon or Catholic, or Quaker or Scientologist. (Well, I’ll reserve judgment on that last one.) It’s wrong.
David Gibson,
I would say religious bigotry involves the “in group” (Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and maybe Jews) versus the “out group” (Mormons, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Wiccans, nonbelievers). Romney didn’t so much speak against religious bigotry as make the case that he was in the “in group.” Jon Meacham on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer last night said he wished Romney had quoted Thomas Jefferson’s remark, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
David Brooks in his column today has some interesting thoughts along the same lines. He says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ref=opinion
I know there some who really dislike David Brooks’s writing here on dotCommonweal, but found his reaction to Romney’s speech very interesting. Perhaps a thread could get started on it.
“they must attempt to make themselves religiously presentable to the rest of America in order to get elected.”
I fail to see the problem. I think in his speech, which wasn’t a vey good speech at the end of the day, Romney did a decent job of pointing out that while state-sponsored religion was very wisely rejected by the founders of the U.S. in favor of religious freedom, a complete divorce of faith from politics is neither possible nor desirable. Politics, while it often involves the art of the possible, is not a completely pragmatic exercise. A candidate making herself/himself “religiously presentable” to her/his fellow citizens does not necessarily denote religious prejudice on the part of the electorate. For the LDS Romney’s candidacy can either be seen as attack and bigotry or an opportunity to familiarize more people in this country with what they believe.
Personally, I could think of nothing worse than having a person of faith as president whose religious beliefs had absolutely no impact on how they governed. Conversely, I don’t want a Catholic president calling the CDF as part the making of laws and public policy. As Catholics we recognize the very important distinction between beliefs of faith and beliefs of reason. While what we believe on the basis of faith (i.e., that God Triune for example) can be explained reasonably, it is not derived from reason, but revelation. Whereas, the Catholic teaching on abortion is not, at least in the first instance, a belief of faith, but of reason. Therefore, as Barak Obama said early in 2006:
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
“Doesn’t matter if the candidate is Mormon or Catholic, or Quaker or Scientologist. (Well, I’ll reserve judgment on that last one.)”
This identifies the flaw in Romney’s speech. The speech was on the wrong topic. Many Americans see Mormon theology to be no more valid than Scientology–both can be proved equally wrong, by science, by history and geography. Romney didn’t need to explain why generic religion is good, he need to explain why Mormonism is different than Scientology. He didn’t do that.
Well-stated Joe. I could not agree more with your concise analysis.
David, if you follow your logic, you are not allowed to reserve judgment about Scientologists unless you are willing to admit that you are a religious bigot. In the race realm, can I say I am okay with African Americans, but not Hispanics and claim not be a racist? Romney’s issue is not like that of the nominally Catholic Giulani, who can just wave Church teaching aside because he doesn’t really practice and no longer really cares. He use his Catholicism when it benefits him and cast it aside when it does not. Whereas, Romeny served as the LDS bishop of a ward (i.e., pastor of a local congregation) and a Stake President (in charge of several wards) and is a very publicly active and, devout believer. This differs from a candidate who may come from a LDS background, but who, like Giulani, can just say “I don’t adhere to x, y, or z” that my religion teaches. I think Mormonism is as exotic to most people in the U.S. as Scientology is. This, again, is why his speech failed.
At the risk of sounding a bit obstinate, the last time I checked a voter in the U.S. is free use whatever criteria s/he chooses when casting a vote, including taking into consideration the religious commitment or lack thereof of any and all candidates. I suspect that for many voters, both religious, non-religious, and anti-religious religion is a factor.
Scott,
I would say that if, say, John Travolta or Tom Cruise were running for president (and I think Katie Holmes would make a lovely first lady), one would be obligated to judge them not by the fact that they are Scientologists, but by what their positions on the issues were and their inevitable speech about how their belief in Scientology would or would not affect the way they governed.
Almost any religion you don’t believe in is just about as wacky as any other.
Many (and I among them) would disagree that the Catholic teaching on abortion is a matter of reason rather than a matter of faith. But when abortion was prohibited in the United States prior to Roe, the prohibition wasn’t dependent on the belief that life (personhood) began at conception. So if Roe is overturned, abortion could be banned on purely secular grounds, if you can get people to agree.
the flaw in your argument, which proves fatal, is :Almost any religion you don’t believe in is just about as wacky as any other.; Which is patently untrue.
Having been born and raised LDS I think I can speak to you fatal flaw both intellectually and experientially.