Ed Kilgore, writing for the New Republic, believes that Robert Jeffress’ recent endorsement of Romney ought to serve as a warning to Democrats who expect that “evangelical distaste for Mormonism will cost Mitt Romney a significant number of votes.” He is probably right.
In any case, Kilgore finds Richard John Neuhaus and Chuck Colson’s Catholics and Evangelicals Together, its recent “Statement on Religious Liberty” found in the pages of First Things’ March issue, to be indicative of the same temporary subordination of theological concern in service of a greater, more urgent responsibility:
The same principle guided the remarkable rapprochement between conservative evangelicals and “traditionalist” Catholics in recent decades. When the theocon Catholic theoretician Richard John Neuhaus and evangelical celebrity Charles Colson formed Catholics and Evangelicals Together (CET) in 1994, it was perceived as a quasi-revolutionary development. It was particularly controversial among Catholics who felt the group’s efforts to move from tactical political cooperation on issues like abortion to theological accommodation went too far. That controversy now seems quaint. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ recently released “Statement on Religious Liberty” went out of its way to endorse a recent manifesto by CET, published in the late Father Neuhaus’s magazine First Things. The Bishops’ statement echoes conservative evangelicals in demanding a high-profile campaign against the Obama administration’s so-called attacks on religious liberty—specifically, the contraception coverage mandate and recent judicial decisions that deny federal funds to religious organizations unwilling to comply with anti-discrimination laws.
Read more here.
April 20th, 2012 | 11:46 am
I wonder if it isn’t an advantage for Romney to be a Mormon. He can appeal to Evangelicals without actually being one. It is more difficult to think of Romney as being part of the “religious right” than someone like Santorum or Bachmann, and yet he can claim to share their values.
It may also help Romney that while he is running as a conservative, many not-so-conservative voters (myself among them) don’t believe Romney is as conservative he claims to be. Romney may be more acceptable to voters closer to the center because his liberal past makes it difficult to believe his current conservatism isn’t at least partly an act. Oddly, I find it somewhat comforting to think that he is putting on an act, and I am not all that afraid of him becoming president, because I think he will probably be pragmatic and centrist.
April 20th, 2012 | 12:44 pm
Discriminating between appropriate and inappropriate behavior including sexual behavior, is not anti-discrimination. It is what all people who respect the inherent Dignity of the human person do, and it it is why those who respect the inherent Dignity of the human person would never condone the contraception mentality by providing free contraception for all, thus promoting promiscuity and the sexual objectification of the human person.
April 20th, 2012 | 6:11 pm
While unnamed in the recent long essay of Chaput, I think “religion-in-the-service-of-politics” is one of the causes of the current loss of the faithful.
Since the late 1970′s, conservatives have used “religion-in-the-service-of-politics.” This was evident in local politics (and I am from South Jersey-it was dominant in the 1980′s) and is still pervasive in many areas.
Young people seem uninterested, and the noisiest youthful betrayors of their upbringings often cite the religio-politcal conservativism. Manhattan is full of such unchurched refugees.
I appreciate religion in the public square. I dislike its subordination to the political sphere, where political artisans like Karl Rove can play with seven digits worth of entire populations by striking the right religious chords.
April 20th, 2012 | 6:26 pm
Concern about Romney’s mormon faith is due to the antichristian – anti Catholic stand of mormonism and Romney’s strong role , even as a bishop in that system .
Likely that he even has a divided heart when it comes to the interest of the majority in the country and this might explain his ‘liberal’ stand , for these people – promoting homosexulaity , contraception abortion , with the rapidly rising costs associated with Romney care which supposedly was set to give coverage for only 2% of the population but is going to cost disprportionatley large amount !
The issue is , Mormonism with its ardent support for its own adherents and antipathy towards outsiders , like Islam also might not be capable of seeing to the ultimate good of Christians -may be from effect of influence of powers unseen even !
Thus , when Santorum talked about the role of faith in politics , he possibly meant to say that a faith that yearns to see good for all , like the Catholic faith and even most Christian faith would try to formulate policies that reflect same !
Thus , when the Church opposes contraception and abortion , it is exhorting Her childern to claim the power of The Holy Spirit and be strong , not cursing them telling them that they are mere slaves to fallen naure and need to deny their right as God’s children , to be holy and strong !
The web site of Amy Contrada would give insights into Romney legislature !
Hope it is not too late – or may he would atleast secretly take up Ann Romney’s former faith of Methodist beliefs !
April 20th, 2012 | 8:48 pm
Discriminating between appropriate and inappropriate behavior including sexual behavior, is not anti-discrimination.
There are people who believe (or at least want us to believe) that the right to not be discriminated against for “who you are” includes everything about you – what you believe, what you choose, how you act, etc.
April 21st, 2012 | 4:45 am
I am not sure what A.M. is drinking that produces such paranoia about us Mormons in general and Mitt Romney in particular.
Romney is a typical Mormon in being both firmly anchored in his own faith while being open to working with people of any faith, respecting each person’s right to religious freedom. Indeed, the Mormon doctrine that every human being is a literal spirit child of God the Father, and equal in dignity to every other human being regardless of ancestry, culture and teligion,
April 21st, 2012 | 5:10 am
(Continued) animates Romney’s ability to work productively with people of all religious beliefs, or none, in the context of business projects, great civic enterprises like the Olympics, and in government. Mormons do not teach their people to hate and resent other religions, in the way that certain “Christian” pastors preach fear and distrust of Mormons. There are no Mormon pamphlets warning against the depravity of Baptists or the snares of Catholics. Detailed research by the authors of the book American Grace found that Mormons have the most positive attitude toward members of other denominations of all churches in America, even while other churches view Mormons with contempt almost as low as they view Muslims. Mormons are victims in these religious wars, not aggressors. It is easy to find innumerable sites on the internet attacking Mormons, but I have never heard of a Mormon’s web site that advocates denigration of Catholics or Protestants. Mormons do not try to block the zoning and construction of other denomibations churches, even though such opposition to building Mormon temples is a routine step in getting one built in the US. Mormons routinely read religious works by authors like Rev. Neuhaus and Bishop.N.T. Wright, while books on theology that were jointly authored by a Mormon scholar and a Protestant theologian have been denounced as anathema by Evangelical pastors. Attempts to justify bigotry toward Mormons on the ground that it merely responds to Mormon animosity is based on an utterly false premise, one that can only be sustained through intentional ignorance.
In my observation, most critics of Romney don’t even listen to what he says, because they are so intent on portraying him according to their own stereotypical notions of what Mormons supposedly believe. Those who demand that Romney persuade them why a Mormon should be considered an acceptable president have things backward. Under Article VI of the Constitution, Romney has a right to serve as president regardless of his religion. Disagree on political views all you want, but the Founding Fathers made it clear that all religions are created equal in the eyes of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
April 21st, 2012 | 8:26 am
Since it is true that God has endowed us with our inherent, unalienable Rights, then the purpose of our unalienable Rights, is what God intended. Why not ask Mr.Romney to clarify whether or not he believes that a State or Government that condones the engaging in or affirming of any act, including sexual act, that demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person violates the fundamental responsibility of our Government to protect our unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, grounded in respect for the equal Dignity of all persons?
April 22nd, 2012 | 7:59 am
Nancy D
An excellent maxim of the Civil Law is “deorum injuriae diis curae” – Offences against the gods are the gods’ concern.”
That is why, in enacting the Penal Code of 1791, the French National Assembly, on the motion of that unlikely revolutionary, Louis Michel le Peletier, Marquis de Saint-Fargeau abolished, without a debate, the crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft.
April 23rd, 2012 | 4:51 pm
Nancy D: Your assertion seems to be that our civil rights and liberties are delimited by your interpretation of how God intended for us to exercise our liberties. Finding agreement by even a majority of citizens about what God actually intends does not seem a fruitful project. Of course, there is always a surplus of people who think they know what God’s intent is, in great detail, even while they decry assertions by others that differ.
In our democratic (small “d”) society, translating your opinion about God’s will into state coercion of the individual requires you to persuade a majority of your fellow citizens of your view. No one, including Romney, is required to sign on to your project. And personally I doubt you can be persuasive about your goal, but you have the freedom to try.
Personally, I think that, rather than seek to find an excuse for government coercion into righteous behavior, we would be better advised to work directly to persuade individuals that God wants them to behave morally. You don’t need to have a coercive majority before your efforts can have an effect. You can see results with the first ten people you persuade. This approach is called “religious conversion”. Romney was actively involved in that approach for two years in France, as I was in Japan. Have you tried it?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact