Sorry Hugh, It's Untenable.
Hewitt's Latest Entry in the Romney Religion Sweepstakes
By Hunter Baker Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hugh Hewitt continues to be wrong in his characterization of the Romney religion question. Here's a clip from his latest:
Bottom line: If you want to study up on the Mormons, fine. There is nothing biogted about genuine curioisty, and certainly there is nothing bigoted about a spirited debate between two faiths about which one is right and which one wrong. But Romney isn't the guy to ask for input on that debate, and asking him isn't really curiosity about Mormonism, it is a sneak attack on his candidacy by attacking his faith as different from most Americans and thus of "concern." Attempting also to disqualify Romney because he won't debate theology or answer personal questions about his religious practices is like saying you wouldn't vote for Rudy because he won't tell you when he last went to Confession: Goofy, and yes, bigoted, as in the Webster's definition of the word: "extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion."
Follow me below where I'll reason with Mr. Hewitt. It gets a little hot. . .
Hugh Hewitt is a clever debater and a clever interviewer. He tries to confine the discussion to categories where he has an advantage. Hence, his effort to put his entire discussion with Erick into the realm of religious bigotry and therefore to keep Erick on the defensive.
But in the end, it's baloney (keeping it clean,) folks and Hugh Hewitt knows it. Unless religion is purely a matter of one's private thoughts and feelings about God, then it is high octane bovine scatology to insist that it is somehow unreasonable to ask Mitt Romney how his faith (and that of his religious community) relates to his political goals and ambitions.
Hewitt tries to warn evangelicals off their natural instincts to be curious by telling them they don't want to be under similar scrutiny. Why, exactly? As an evangelical, I would never answer a question about my religious beliefs with "that's private" or "that's irrelevant." And I certainly wouldn't tell someone to "go study up at a church website." We all stand ready to give an account "for the hope that is within us" and that's not just for Sunday at church.
Bottom line, Hugh: You want to create suspicion and ill will, do what you're doing and insist that Romney shouldn't be the ambassador for his faith that he is. Send all questioners off to the library. The real answer is engagement.
By the way, I find it interesting that religion is private all of a sudden for you. Heaven knows you were interested in whether John Kerry and Terry MacAuliffe have been faithful to the Catholic teachings on abortion.
I guess they should have gotten you on their team to argue they shouldn't have to answer that question, huh, Hugh?
« Standby . . . — Comments (45) | I Await Hugh Hewitt Calling James Dobson A Religious Bigot — Comments (54) »
Sorry Hugh, It's Untenable. 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
And in the sinistrosphere (link here to a few articles) is that Romney's Mormonism is too much of an "Americocentric" faith!
A very different, though arguably more troubling, set of questions and concerns are posed by the prospect of the nation electing a president who is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). In some ways, Catholicism and Mormonism present diametrically opposed political challenges to liberal democracy. With Kennedy's faith, the concern was over the extent of his deference to a foreign ecclesiastical authority. The genuine and profound loyalty of Mormons to the United States and its political system is, by contrast, undeniable. Indeed, LDS patriotism flows directly from Mormon theology. And that is precisely the problem.
So in other words, for liberals and leftists, the central problem with Romney's Mormonism is that his faith isn't "global" enough, it isn't "diverse" enough, and is too heavily invested in the United States. I hardly thought that would be a serious concern for people on RedState, but I get a new surprise every day, it seems.
However some questions might be appropriate. Like will your faith affect the way you prosecute war? Or maybe, Will the need for you to observe the Sabbath affect your ability to be president?
Inappropriate questions would be, Do Mormon’s believe blank? Or a leading question like, does being a member of a “cult” …. Or maybe, because of your faith’s history with polygamy do you feel that your position on same sex marriage….
The difference is the decent questions ask how it will affect his performance. The indecent are a veiled attack or asking him to be a spokesperson for a group that hasn’t asked him to be.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
The thing that I'm asking people to be cognizant of, and perhaps do a little reading about before they attack Romney, is to try and comprehend why the "other side" is attacking him for his Mormonism.
In large part, they're attacking it because Mormonism is *too heavily invested* in the United States and therefore suspicious to them. It worries me that so many people that I'm reading on the right side of the blogosphere have, perhaps unwittingly, bought into this strategem.
Personally, I'd like to have a President with a strong belief system, a strong but tolerant faith that is also unapologetic about being centered here in the U.S. and primarily concerned with the United States. But that's just me.
The thing that's offensive to me is Hewitt's thought police routine on this issue. I would vote for Romney without a problem, but this strongarm from Hewitt gives me pause. I don't like anybody trying to tell me religion is irrelevant, because we all know that's not so. It matters.
Hey, maybe it would be nice even to know if Romney is a conservative or liberal Mormon theologically speaking? I generally want to know that about Protestants and Catholics, respectively.
And I think you have a point about Hewitt insinuating that you (and others) are bigots for asking the questions. That's out of bounds. I know that it's a legitimate concern to you -- and strangely enough it's a legitimate concern for me, also. My most solemn wish for Romney is that he'll start answering these questions more candidly in the coming months. I've been saying that about him all along. But we also need to realize that there are a lot of people who have the long knives out for Romney because of his faith -- for completely different reasons that I don't agree with.
I didn't even know...
I don't think it changes the equation for me much, except that I can better understand why he might get so defensive about the legitimacy of his own faith.
Now it says Romney as intended.
Well, every theology has their different factions. Usually the media identifies them as: liberal, moderate, or conservative. These identities are often not very good divisions, this is particularly the case for Mormons. While there are liberal theological Mormons, most Mormon theological debates break down along the following lines: (Note these are my terms, there are no offical terms for these divisions, as these tend to be informal positions.)
Conservative Mormon theology (Probably referred to as "moderates" by the media)
Traditionalist Mormon theology (Probably referred to as "conservatives" by the media)
and Orthodox Mormon theology (Probably referred to as "conservatives" by the media, except when they say something surprising, then we become "ecclectics")
(These are all mainstream Mormon theological approaches, we are not talking about the so-called "fundamentalists" who sacrifice all doctrine on the altar of polygamy).
Romeny is almost certainly from the Conservative branch of Mormon theology. I am using the term conservative to refer to their mode of approaching issues of doctrine. Conservatives tend to focus on order, common sense, and stability of doctrine.
Traditionalists tend to focus on approaching doctrine by consulting tradition.
While Orthodox Mormons respond to doctrinal issues by consulting and debating the minutiae of scriptorial/prophetic evidence.
Traditionalists tend to be heavily centered in Utah.
Orthodoxist thought seems to be more prominent outside of Utah.
While Conservative thought tends to be evenly distributed.
Leaders of the Church tend to be drawn from the Conservative and Orthodox views of doctrine.
Orthodox Mormons are probably the most dependably political conservatives, but are not very partisan. Ezra Taft Benson is probably the best example of an Orthodox Mormon's approach to politics.
Conservatives are probably the most dependably Republican, and also tend towards conservative thought, but some of them are more liberal. Reid probably comes from the conservative theological wing of Mormonism.
Now it must of course be stressed that Conservatives, Traditionalists, and Orthodox Mormons all agree on 99% of doctrine- but because of their different approaches, sometimes they interpert the doctrine differently.
He's a Presbyterian, I think. Some form of "main-line" denomination.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
That these questions are appropriate to ask. I would like to see Romney answer more of them.
I will note, however, that until Romney announced his Presidential candidacy his faith wasn't much of an issue to liberals in the most liberal/lefty/atheist/agnostic state in the Union.
As soon as the man decided he wanted to run for President, however, it became a liberal talking point and a gigantic liability -- all of a sudden! Read that article at TMR for some of the highbrow liberal analysis. Let's make no mistake about it: what liberals want in the next President is someone whose faith is so watered-down and globally-sensitive and disconnected from the United States that even most Unitarian Universalists wouldn't pass muster under severe scrutiny. I rather think that Romney's main problem with liberals is that he's too much of an American by dint of his faith!
They are the ones who started this interrogation of Romney in the MSM, and they are the ones who can be expected (once Romney becomes an also-ran if they're successful) to turn on any other Candidate the Republicans have to offer.
Especially because Rudy Giuliani has demonstrated that the words: "For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, until death do us part" sound nice and are something you have to say when you're going through the motions but really don't mean much in the end.
Now I disagree with Hugh. I think that asking Romney a question about Mormon beliefs out of curiosity isn't a sign of bigotry.
On the other hand, if the questions are along the lines of: "Do you wear magic underwear?" or starts of with some statement like "I know the Jesus you believe in is a different Jesus." Well, then I think Hugh has a point.
Once again Hugh is overstating the case, as he usually does.
However, I think you are also overstating the case, as I don't think Romney's decision to run for President means he has an obligation to serve as information central for all sincere questions about Mormon doctrine.
Now if the questions touch on some interplay between faith and government, than that is different. For example: "When does life begin?" is a legitimate faith based question, as are the questions "What is the proper relationship between the government and religious organizations?" "When is war/killing justified?". If Romney is wise I think he might want to elaborate on how his faith impacts these moral assessments.
But if someone wants to know Mormon doctrine relating to the Trinity- even if it's sincere, I think Romney is entirely within his rights to point that questioner in the direction of church missionaries.
Now, I would probably answer the question, because I value any chance I get to witness for my faith. However, I can see how Romney would have good reason to want his campiagn to focus on policy issues, and not apoligetics for the Mormon faith.
So to sum up: I think Hugh Hewitt is being unreasonable, and I think you and Erick are being unreasonable. We don't have to take such extreme postitions on what level of disscussion of faith is acceptable in public discourse.
I think that most of us can tell the difference between bigoted questioning of Romney's faith, and sincere curiosity. I think we can also tell the difference between Romney dodging legitimate questions, and simply a desire to focus actual policy issues, rather than theological debates.
Cicero, from my own perspective I am more or less fighting for the position you have enunciated. I think it is reasonable to ask Mitt questions about the interrelation of his faith and politics. I don't think Erick was striking toward magical underwear at all. You are trying to be fair to Hugh Hewitt and that is quite commendable.
I don't think that either you or Erick actually believe asking about magic underwear is appropriate, just as I doubt Hewitt thinks asking questions about direct interelationships between politics and faith are bigotry.
However, I feel that that is the logical conclusion to be drawn from you and Erick's rhetoric. Just as Hugh's rhetoric leads to the logical conclusion that all issues relating to faith are off the table.
I guess my point is "A soft answer turneth away wrath."
Of course my grandfather said "A little righteous indignation now and again is a good thing." Which I also agree with, and I guess is you and Erick's point, (and probably Hewitt's as well.)
When we consider that we are all conservative Republicans who all really just want to pick the best Presidential candidate possible- not only for our party, but for our country it seems to me that the former aphorism should apply, rather than the latter.
Cicero, you're right about the ugliness of the fight. Hopefully, we can all keep in mind that this debate and aggressive debate can be okay as long everyone maintains perspective.
I sometimes get hot under the collar myself, and have posted some over the top replies.
I'm glad you realize that we all are on the same side, and I guess your main point is that Hugh Hewitt needs to realize that too, and calm down the rhetoric a little. I can agree with that.
Is Hunter Baker the point man for RedState's anti-Romney campaign?
You're mistaking anti-Hugh on Romney for anti-Romney. I'll have no problem supporting him if nominated. My problem is with Hugh's position on religion and politics.
How much should a person's religion play in the decision whether to vote for that person? Obviously, I think we all would have difficulty voting for someone that is a follower of the occult. Actually, maybe that is Mitt's problem. Don't most evangelicals more or less equate Mormonism with the occult? Either way, it seems that religion should be taken into account to some degree. With regard to Mitt, I haven't seen anything to indicate that his religion would have a negative effect on his presidency.
Actually, most evangelicals are generally ignorant on their own denominational/doctrinal specifics. Likely the folks who would be most opinionated and informed would be SBC, but I'm guessing even they don't know much about LDS.
And, I'm an evangelical. Been here for a long time in several different denominations and in "non-denominational" congregations. Theology just simply escapes most of us.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I remember when I was in Oklahoma, every Baptist, and most of the other Protestant churchs had a copy of Ed Decker's "The God Makers".
I found it ironic, since being from Washington (State) I knew all about Decker, and had put up with alot of his obnoxious activities there, only to face him again in video form in Oklahoma. (Decker is the main anti-Mormon who claims Mormons are actually Satanists/occult. He was excommunicated up in Washington for commiting adultry, and has been trying to get back at the church ever since.)
Of course, as you say most actual evangelicals seemed to let the Decker video go in one ear and out the other (along with all theological questions), and didn't even know what the video claimed Mormons thought.
Finally, anyone who did use Decker as the source of Mormons doctrine were still essentially ignorant, they just think that they aren't.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Honestly, as a libertarian-leaning thinker, I'd say "not much"... tempting to say "none at all", but I can't necessarily say that just out of consideration of some fringe views out there. I am an evangelical, but my faith is only one part of who I am. I'd like to see a President who is an Evangelical, but I'll take a competent executive any day.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
Mike, you probably underestimate the degree to which you're faith informs your worldview. Nobody is really acting from purely scientific or utilitarian bases.
I think Hewitt is way out of bounds in suggesting questions about a presidential candidate's faith is necessarily bigoted. Someone's faith or lack thereof is important in understanding who that person is, what values he holds dear, and how he thinks. All of these affect how a candidate would act in office which makes questions about faith or religion fundamentally different than questions about race.
Also, Romney is not the only candidate, nor should he be, who will face questions about his faith. Listening to the Huckabee interview that was posted here on RS, one of the first questions was "How, as a Southern Baptist preacher, will you bring your faith into the White House?" Does that make the questioner bigoted? Not in my opinion.
BTW, Huckabee answered the question as follows: "I certainly won't ever seek to impose my faith through a government action. I would never run from my faith because it deines who I am and what makes me tick. I cringe when people in politics or public life when asked the faith question act as if it will have no influence on their public policy because to me what they're really saying is that their faith is so insignificant and immaterial that it doesn't have any impact on the way they think. Well, that's a pretty weak faith. Faith will drive us from the inside out. And real leadership and integrity is when we're driven from the inside out, not from the outside in." He goes on to talk about how his faith influences his positions on abortion, poverty, hunger, and crime.
Faith matters to this voter and any candidate who ducks this question will be viewed negatively by me.
While I wouldn't vote against a Mormon candidate just because of that person's faith, it doesn't mean others wouldn't. Its certainly within the realm of possibility that if a Muslim ran for president, many voters would be turned off to that candidate based on the person's muslim faith.
In the case of Romney, he openly discusses his deeply held beliefs in mormonism. Once he did that, the issue is fair game for the voting public to discuss.
I also feel that we're ignoring reality here which is that leftists are going to demonize Romney's faith as a means of demonizing him if he gets the nomination. And centrists and independents are going to be susceptible to these attacks unless Romney provides a compelling answer to questions about his religion that sidelines the topic. Mormonism does not have a good public image, period. And no amount of arguments around, well, we shouldn't ask questions about religion is going to change that. It will inevitably affect electability unless dealt with. While I don't support Romney for other reasons, I'm shocked that he has not addressed this head-on. It will continue to drag down his candidacy until he does.
There is nothing lonelier than being a black Republican in Boston, Massachusetts
1) If Romney started answering more direct questions about how his faith influences his political decisions and informs his political ambitions, do you think that would be a net gain or a net loss for Mitt Romney as a potential President? Or would Mitt Romney be walking directly into the trap that was set for him nearly two months ago by a leftist commentator at The New Republic, who opined that Romney's Mormon faith should be explored deeply by the public and used as a wedge to warn people off about him?
2) If Mitt Romney converted to Roman Catholicism to assuage these doubts about his religion, would any evangelical view that as a genuine conversion or yet another act of political opportunism?
3) Isn't identifying yourself as an "evangelical" Christian rather an admission that you belong to a sect of Christianity that represents a minority of people in this country? Even though that minority should be respected and listened to, and their concerns should be heard and accomodated, why do you think that being an evangelical Christian entitles anyone to pass judgment on Romney's faith?
I realize that's tough to answer because he's said so little about it thus far. But since the beginning of his candidacy, I haven't seen an equivalent interest taken in why, for example, Rudolph Giuliani isn't more of an "evangelical" (he most certainly isn't) and neither is Newt Gingrich (he isn't either).
I have yet to hear a good explanation of what Romney's religion has to do with people's expectations of him as the President. Where is the fear coming from here?