RSS Feed MenuJonathan Rauch draws attention to a Nov. 20 open letter signed by Christian intellectuals.
Jonathan comments:
I interpret the release of this document, at this moment, as a warning shot directed at the conservative movement and, less directly, the Republican Party. The gist, in my own translation:
1) “Opposition to abortion and gay marriage will be the two issues for the social right. Forget about diversifying the portfolio or changing the emphasis. Not gonna happen on our watch.”
2) “Never mind polls showing gradually increasing acceptance of gay marriage. Never mind the country’s now-majority support for some form of publicly recognized same-sex partnership, even among younger evangelicals. Homosexuality is ’sexual immorality,’ now and forever, and public sanction of same-sex sexual unions is unacceptable. Period.”
3) “Don’t even think about going squishy on either of these issues, because, if you do, we will split the movement. You have been warned. It’s opposition to gay marriage to the bitter end… or civil war.”
I see the Declaration as part of the Republican/conservative drive toward a smaller, purer party/movement. I suspect it will help deliver the “smaller” part, anyway.
I think Jonathan has missed the lede on this story. Here’s the lede:
A declaration intended as the defining statement of conservative Christian principle in the post-2008 political landscape – endorsed by over 150 people over a period of a month – found room for not a single Mormon signatory. Mormons may contribute generously to social conservative causes like the National Organization for Marriage and the campaign against same-sex marriage in California. But when it comes time to define what is Christian and what is not, Mormons are not to be included. I have to think that’s ominous news for the Romney 2012 campaign.
balconesfault // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Sparticus It’s always amusing to see “conservatives” argue for tropes such as “victory” in a war on terror or “small government” during ballooning deficits, only to show themselves intellectually impotent when asked to explain how these things are actually achieved.
Well, Sinz has already stated his case for when he believes the “War on Terror” will be won.
And those conditions are absolutely unrealistic. Particularly when you have a clamor from the right for something like a religiously inspired psychotic turning a gun on men and women who the day before he would have saluted being defined as “terrorism”.
By that definition if terrorism, we have as much chance of eliminating terrorism as we have of eliminating criminal psychoses. None.
balconesfault // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Some of my evangelical friends say they won’t be satisfied till our government becomes a “Christian one.”
An AM political talk show host here in Austin last year declared that he would never vote for a non-Christian if there was a Christian in the race. And he still has his job. Go figure.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:34 am
balconesfault wrote: “Well, Sinz has already stated his case for when he believes the “War on Terror” will be won.”
I remember reading that post and wondering why he wasn’t embarrassed to have written something like that.
gkg // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:40 am
The rhetoric about Mormons being a cult and not being Christian is tired and worn. If you know a member of the LDS church, and you probably do, you may very well find him or her to be someone who is trying to live a Christ-like life of service and charity who doesn’t really fit the picture that is painted by detractors.
Objective thinkers should be judging Romney by his record rather than his religion. There is no reason to think that the LDS church would have more influence on his politics than it does on Harry Reid who is also a Mormon.
Wisdom, Imprinted Agendas, Presidential Politics and more… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:00 am
[...] this guy – this guy and this thread at Free Republic. This in spite of the fact that David Frum thinks the thing is exclusionary for Romney. (Frum’s comment must have been written under the influence of too much Thanksgiving cheer [...]
DFL // Nov 30, 2009 at 12:38 pm
If Romney is “political toast”, as Chekote insists, and Huckabee is through due to what happened in Tacoma this weekend, then does Mrs. Palin win the nomination in 2012 by default? Or does Romney, despite what Chekote maintains, become the default nominee?
Carney // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I forgot to mention that another key reason I backed Romney was my relatively high confidence that no personal or financial corruption scandal would emerge to harm him or the campaign. This was key after the never-ending parade of mortifying GOP scandal – Abramoff, Cunningham, Foley, Craig, etc. In general, Mormons are so honest they are heavily over-represented in high-temptation jobs such as gambling regulation.
dragonlady // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“The GOP is now almost totally run in religious terms.” A correction: evangelicals make up about 25% of GOP voters so while they don’t run the GOP, they are sizable enough that they just can’t be ignored. I think it’s possible for Romney to overcome his Mormonism with the base but as far as litmus tests, I don’t think you’ll see an atheist or Muslim nominated any time soon from either party. That’s not just a GOPism–I think many Americans would be uncomfortable with either in the Oval Office for various reasons (right or wrong).
I don’t agree Romney is completely done in by his previous campaign. In this age of instant media, he can re-tool his image and play up the competence angle. Obama is starting to be perceived as having a competence problem (see Noonan’s latest column)–remains to be seen whether he turns this around. If the economy is still down the tubes in 2012 or if unemployment is still high, Romney, I think, can credibly show he has a fundamental understanding of the economy and how the private sector works. I think independents are pretty practical–they’ll choose someone they think can “fix” things over ideology. If he fails on politics, that’s one thing. If we self-exclude him because he’s a Mormon, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot. These discussions on whether Mormonism is or is not outside of Christianity make my head hurt–I have no problem with his Mormon religion.
From what I’ve seen of Eric Cantor, I would consider supporting him in a run–doesn’t bother me he’s Jewish. Except the House of Rep is often too small a platform to run from.
JedMerrill // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Carney, regarding: “True-believing Mormons owe absolute allegiance to a figure who is bound by no limits and whose commands on anything thus cannot be predicted with certainty.”
I don’t know any Mormon who promises such absolute allegiance to anyone. We even struggle to follow Christ sometimes.
I think the perpetuation of the idea that Mormons are somehow sheep to some mortal man or men is very ironic, considering the primary purpose of those mortal men is to help us individually get in touch with God and know his will.
Thomas S. Monson, Gordon B. Hinckley, Joseph Smith himself… Their power to influence members of the Church can be found in these profound, yet simple, verses from the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121: (Pay special attention to verses 36 and 41-46!)
34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distill upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/121
Joseph Smith himself was asked how he was able to govern the Church, and he answered, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”
Thomas S. Monson, current President of the Church, I respect first and foremost because of his example of service to others throughout his life, not his title. When my grandfather’s sister-in-law died last year, the President of this now 14 million member church quietly showed up to comfort the family.
While there is an established hierarchy in the Church that has changed at times to accommodate the rapid growth of the Church throughout the world, it is unfair to call the Church in any way authoritarian or rigid. It is organized, as one would expect the household of God to be. “My house is a house of order,” God said.
Mr. Tweet: Your Personal Networking Assistant! // Dec 25, 2009 at 4:04 am
[...] of a 5k race on Thanksgiving Day in Kennewick, Wash. The former vice preside… 2 Likes Romney’s Evangelical Problem 2 Likes WHO | Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 – update 76 2 Likes Brains [...]
Eunomia » Romney And The Manhattan Declaration // Feb 5, 2010 at 9:33 pm
[...] Romney And The Manhattan Declaration Posted on November 28th, 2009 by Daniel Larison Digg Stumble Upon Newsvine Slashdot Mixx Diigo Google Delicious Reddit Facebook A declaration intended as the defining statement of conservative Christian principle in the post-2008 political landscape – endorsed by over 150 people over a period of a month – found room for not a single Mormon signatory. Mormons may contribute generously to social conservative causes like the National Organization for Marriage and the campaign against same-sex marriage in California. But when it comes time to define what is Christian and what is not, Mormons are not to be included. I have to think that’s ominous news for the Romney 2012 campaign. ~David Frum [...]