Mitt Romney Was a Wannabe President, Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum
David Weigel | December 21, 2006, 10:11am
Slate's Jacob Weisberg,
writing about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, says a few things about his religion that have gone unspoken elsewhere.
There are millions of religious Americans who would never vote for an atheist for president, because they believe that faith is necessary to lead the country. Others, myself included, would not, under most imaginable circumstances, vote for a fanatic or fundamentalist—a Hassidic Jew who regards Rabbi Menachem Schneerson as the Messiah, a Christian literalist who thinks that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, or a Scientologist who thinks it is haunted by the souls of space aliens sent by the evil lord Xenu. Such views are disqualifying because they're dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is. By the same token, I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.
Is that religious bigotry? Well, by definition, I suppose including a candidate's religion in your calculus of whether or not to give him a vote is bigotry. Millons of Americans do it. I'm sure that back in 2000, a sizable number of Jews turned their noses up at Dick Cheney and George Bush for the chance to elect Vice President Joe Lieberman. And is distrusting Romney because of his Mormonism the same as voting against JFK because he took the Eucharist? Not really. Substantial numbers of voters opposed JFK (and for the same reason Al Smith) for fear he would integrate the Vatican into government decisions. No one thinks Romney will do something similar. They just think Mormonism is irrational and creepy. That's their right.
Jonah Goldberg's hope that Americans love to vote for "inclusion" and Romney's Mormonism will produce favorable storylines is fruitless; the media enjoys reporting on insurgent black, female and Hispanic candidates, not on members of conservative religious faiths.
Also, kudos to Weisberg to knocking down the meme that Romney is the first serious Mormon candidate for president. Not only did the (less than serious) Orrin Hatch run in 2000, the very credible Mo Udall ran in 1976, and might have beaten Jimmy Carter for the nomination had Birch Bayh or Frank Church dropped out and endorsed him. There's no real evidence that Romney is a more promising candidate than Udall was. Udall just looked tall and goofy, while Romney looks like a Ken doll sculpted out of ham.
Jay J. | December 21, 2006, 11:57am | #
I never meant to say that religion can't be used to determine who we should or shouldn't vote for; I only meant that we should use religion SELECTIVELY. And if Mormonism disqualifies someone, then fine, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Islam, Orthodox Judaism, etc should also disqualify someone. All kinds of religions teach things that are no more believable than what Mormonism teaches.
And I don’t buy that because one miracle-based faith system has thousands of years of history and legions of adherents it’s more respectable. That makes no difference.
I have no problem with a black person deciding to vote against a Mormon because of Mormonism’s quasi-doctrine (most LDSs believe it, some don’t, it’s not officially taught anymore) that black-skin is proof that they descended from Cain, who was cursed with a dark skin. I also think that white people ought to be able to choose to vote against the Congressman from Minnesota because he was a member of the Nation of Islam, which teaches (though this teaching is downplayed nowadays) that white people are descended from an experiment conducted by an evil black scientist thousand of years ago, in which this scientist decided to create a “bleached” race that would plague the superior black man. The only problem is that Romney would probably catch a lot more public flack, while it would be considered a bit taboo for Weisberg to have written a similar article about the Nation of Islam. That would have been, like, racist or something.
And I also have no problem with declaring open season on adults who believe in “fairy tale.” It’s just that when we declare this war; let’s do with integrity, meaning that we will apply this standard across the board, and not just too religious groups considered sort of weird and uncool.
When I read an article like this, it’s just that I only see fringe religions being critiqued. Mainstream religions shouldn’t get a free pass because we’ve all got, like, cousins and aunts and grandmas in them. Let’s be consistent, or let’s just drop the practice of declaring unjustified beliefs to be problematic.
Jay J. | December 21, 2006, 1:34pm | #
I'm on my way out the door, for the rest of the day this time. But before I go, I need to say something to deal with the weird perception that I am defending religion.
Here's my opinion:
By targeting Mormonism and Scientology, people are merely piling on. Mormonism and Scientology are already made a mockery of in our pop culture, so it doesn’t take much courage to join in. In my opinion, rationalizing the relative acceptability of run-of-the-will religious belief against an apparent unacceptability of outcast religious belief is a way to have your cake and eat it too. It enables the so-called iconoclast to pile onto groups that are already being attacked. This way, a person can go ahead and make themselves accepted in our largely religious nation, without compromising their identity as a rational thinker, since they criticize Mormons and Scientologists.
The thing is…long-standing agreement that an unbelievable X happened does not make it a more reasonable thing to think than the new unbelievable Y that only a few people believe. Consensus does not turn a terd into a diamond.
If mainline religions have made a metaphor of their beliefs, fine. But they really haven’t. These “liberal” religions have kept all the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity, but they just practice a type of duplicity that allows some of their parishioners to be conceptual and others to be literal. There are many more literalists in these denominations than Weisberg seems to realize.
Even Reform Jews, who don’t even hold many literal beliefs in miracles, encourage their members to lop off their sons foreskin, in spite of the obvious pain and mounting evidence of lost sexual sensitivity later in life.
The Virgin Birth isn’t more plausible that Joseph Smith’s claims. And the resurrection isn’t more plausible because the historical background is verifiable.
I hope that it becomes obvious to people that I’m not defending religion.
I merely think that the standard should be applied to more than just an already agreed upon group of virtual outcasts.
Pinko said, “See "abstinence only" education for just one example.”
Pinko, I couldn’t agree more. I’m not sure why someone would think I’m calling for a “dispensation.” I’m actually calling for the opposite. If no one gets a break, fine. But if some people do, we shouldn’t pat ourselves on the back for attacking Mormons when we don’t have the courage to attack beliefs that are objectively just as unjustified, like loping off a part of a baby boy penis cuz it’s a covenant with God, or that Mary got pregnant without having sex.
If we can’t apply it across the board, then I question the sincerity of out standards.
James Anderson Merritt | December 21, 2006, 2:11pm | #
Captain Holly | December 21, 2006, 1:50pm | #
However, I will note in passing that the generally hostile sentiments towards religion and religious people expressed on this forum are shared by about, oh, maybe 5% of the US population, and it vividly illustrates Reason #1,563 why libertarians in general and the Libertarian Party in particular will never be a significant force in American politics.
=================================
Oh Captain (not) my Captain: According to some contributors here, there are almost no Libertarian Party members present in this forum. (I am one, however, and I vigorously defend the right of the LDS to exist and to be understood on its own terms. Fancy that!) If you wander around the threads, you will note a lot of Libertarian Party bashing; it's sort of the thing to do at this site. So if you thought you were going to scandalize the locals by taking a shot at the LP, think again, and stand in line.
Welcome to the monkey house. In my opinion, the reason that the LP may never be a significant force in American politics is because even people who should by temperament be its friends -- such as the self-described libertarians at this forum -- take such delight in eviscerating, mocking, and disavowing it, even as they throw their votes away, ping-ponging between the Republicans and the Democrats, from election to election, in some too-clever-by-half plan to indirectly "move" the nation by stealth in the direction of more liberty. That plan hasn't seemed to work for decades, yet people keep trying it while making a point to avoid voting directly for libertarian policies and candidates. That's a sure path to NOT getting what you want, it appears to me.
Captain Holly | December 21, 2006, 3:40pm | #
So Holly, when black people stopped being the official descendants of Cain, were you disappointed or relieved by the way God changed his mind about the inherent sinfulness of the race?
Jennifer, the issue is far more complex than the "Mormons R Teh Racist!" spin that you and others put on it.
You might be surprised to know, for example, that a fair amount of early Mormon converts were free slaves. Some, such as Elijah Abel, were ordained to the priesthood and came to Utah in 1847. It is interesting to note that Bro. Abel was able to keep his priesthood throughout his life despite the general prohibition.
I'm not going to try to explain any doctrinal reasons for it, since it's doubtful you'd understand them. But most secular historians view the prohibition as a practical response to persecution from the Mormon's pro-slavery neighbors in Missouri. Considering that the Great Emancipator hisself felt constrained to publicly state in Illinois that he believed blacks were inferior to whites, it's not surprising that an integrated church which ordained free slaves to its priesthood would not be well-accepted anywhere in antebellum America.
Incidentally, I clearly remember the day -- June 8th, 1978 -- when the prohibition was lifted. The overwhelming attitude of myself and 99% of the other members of the LDS Church was one of joy and relief. Nor was it ever considered to be written in stone; Mormons consider the primary mission of the Church to take the gospel to "all the world", and that was not possible unless the doctrine was changed.
Most Mormons viewed it as a "sign of the times" that heralded an era of church expansion, and considering the massive growth of the church in Africa since then, that was not inaccurate. Only a few disgruntled members left, and I know of no significant spin-off congregations created by the decision (as opposed to the many small breakaway groups created by the decision to outlaw polygamy).
In closing, I don't think this issue will hurt Romney at all. I have noticed that anti-Mormon groups often overplay their hand, thinking that emphasizing some odd part of Mormonism will cause the average person to have a "Eureka!" moment and turn against Mormons. In most cases, people will look at the candidate himself, and in Romney they will see someone who is likeable, articulate, and free from many of the skeletons that infest most politicians' closets. That will be far more significant than arguments about long-abandoned church doctrines.
mike | December 21, 2006, 6:21pm | #
Jacob Weisberg of Slate says the following: “But if he gets anywhere in the primaries, Romney's religion will become an issue with moderate and secular voters—and rightly so. Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2155902/
Jacob says that, “Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender.”
How did Jacob get his Job at slate? Did someone ask him what religion he was, or did someone ask what experience he had? Perhaps someone asked to see his Resume.
Jacob Weisberg said, “Such views are disqualifying because they're dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.”
So you can pre-judge someone based on their religious beliefs? You don’t need a Resume? You don’t need to look at their IQ, ACT scores, or accomplishments to judge them? All you need to know is what religion they belong to in order to classify them as “dogmatic, irrational, and absurd”. Jacob actually said, “by holding them (these beliefs), someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.”
Is that how Jacob Weisberg got a job at slate? They asked him for a Resume, and he said, “don’t worry, I’m an atheist”. And the head-honcho at Slate, said, “Good, I don’t have enough time to look at people’s qualifications. I hate Résumé’s with all those stupid things like, ‘graduated from Harvard Business and Law School Cum Laude. Valedictorian. These don’t really mean anything. All I need to do is hear a profession of faith (testimony), or lack thereof, depending on what is fashionable in this day and time. By proclaiming your religious beliefs or lack there of you have told me everything I need to know about you. Welcome to Slate.”
No, I assume that Jacob had to show some qualifications maybe even a Resume. It would have been against federal law for his Boss to ask him what religion he was, wouldn’t it?
Jacob says, “By the same token, I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.” Is that so Jacob? If you owned a business would you hire a Mormon? They have obviously proven to you that they are stupid. Do you want stupid people working for you? Do you feel comfortable admitting to the world that you are a bigot? What an ass.
Jacob says that Mitt Romney is an “Elder” in the church. If Jacob would have spent 30 seconds talking to someone from the church, he would have realized that Romney is not an Elder.
I think it is great that Jacob wants America to be more like Northern Ireland and Iran were people are judged based on which religion they belong to.
I’m glad that Jacob can take a short cut to intellectualism. He doesn’t have to debate Mitt Romney, he doesn’t have to read the Old Testament, New Testament, or Book of Mormon. He doesn’t have to do better in school, on the ACT’s, SAT’s or in life than Mitt Romney in order to be smarter than he is. All he has to do is reject Mormonism, and therefore he is smarter than Mitt Romney, and deserves more than Romney does, to be president. Forget that Romney balanced the budget without raising taxes; forget that he came up with a new way corralling people away from the emergency rooms and into insurance plans. None of that Matters. Jacob Weisberg is more qualified to be president, in his view, because he is not a Mormons.
Then Jacob says about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It is his only argument that he brings to the table besides that Mormons are too stupid to be president. The rest of his article is him parading around in his naked bigotry. But here is the only argument that he bring to the table and it makes me wonder how he got a job working anywhere, let alone at slate magazine.
He says, “Perhaps Christianity and Judaism are merely more venerable and poetic versions of the same [transparent fraud]. But a few eons makes a big difference. The world's greater religions have had time to splinter, moderate, and turn their myths into metaphor.” So every other time their was a religious movement were people left one church and joined another, it was healthy. It was good, because it was a reformation. But when my ancestor, George Laub who was a Baptist preacher left his church to become a Mormon it was not part of this reformation? He does not think that Mormonism had anything to draw my grandparents to it? It was not a healthy splintering, moderation? Why were all the other new religions good, but Mormonism was bad? Jacob does not tell us. He wants us to Judge mitt Romney, without looking at any of the details of his life, and he wants us to agree with him that religious bigotry towards Mormons is good, without giving us any reason to agree with him. No substance. No reasons to come to his conclusion. No logic. No independent way of judging Mitt. No use of a Resume. No looking at his skills or experience. And Jacob gives us no reason to agree with him. We are just supposed to jump to his side without any substance, without any reason besides his self righteous mockery.
I would like to see Jacob Weisberg’s Resume, and I can get Mitt Romney’s resume, and we can see who America thinks is smarter.
Jay J. | December 21, 2006, 6:34pm | #
Got back from shopping, it's a mad house out there. Prolly cuz all those people were religious, huh?
Anyways, I was wondering, what's wrong with special underwear? Why in the world should we care?
Seriously folks, we rightly cringe when we hear of female circumcision which is practiced in the third world. But ya know when a baby boy like, gasps, then starts to scream, that's probably cuz it hurts like hell to cut off a part of your penis. And there is growing evidence that it reduces a man's sexual sensitivity later in life. Now, I know this is a common practice, but Jews practice it because they believe God wants them to, or at least because of religious affiliation. In this day and age of modern hygienic standards, the rates of infection between circumcised and non-circumcised boys are only negligibly different. But still Orthodox, Conservative, and most Reform Jews insist and encourage male circumcision. Is this better than Mormons wearing special underwear?
Could it be that Jews are like, a protected species or something? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a holocaust denier and what Mel Gipson said was obviously crazy, but why aren’t we applying these standards across the board? I’ll tell ya why. It’s because there are taboos and there are groups that are not “in” in the high school sense of the word.
Mormons are not “in” and it is taboo to criticize any structural part of Judaism lest you be lumped in with inbred, backward bigots.
It’s not a conscious thing; it’s like a learned unconscious habit.
I know the posters around here can prolly come up with something clever to say in response to this post, but until they apply these standards across the board and stop sticking up for other religions who hold similar beliefs, I’m gonna take today’s criticism of Mormonism to be a selective form of low-risk pseudo intellectual hot air.
Once again, I’m not defending religion, but I do think religious people can be very capable leaders. If you think otherwise, I’m gonna say that Mao and Stalin were pretty bad, so being ideologically opposed to religion doesn’t seem like a reliable standard either, at least not by itself apart from knowing more about a candidate.
I notice that none of those critiquing Mormonism’s teaching or clothing habits wanted to critique Jewish religious views on circumcision, Nation of Islam views on black superiority, or Catholic teachings about literally consuming the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. If Mitt Romney needs to denounce Mormonism skeletons, then JFK should have had to deal with Catholicism’s, and the Minnesota Congressman should have to answer to his time in the NOI. I should add although that a couple of posters bravely mocked Scientology.
isildur | December 21, 2006, 7:43pm | #
The closer to the modern day that outrageous claims are made, the more pressure there is on those claims to be demonstrable in some way.
We can accept (or at least give a pass to) the story of Jesus walking on water, because it supposedly happened a really long time ago, and we don't expect to find a lot of evidence for or against it in the available sources. The sources, in fact, are pretty spotty on almost every topic, and don't exactly represent a comprehensive look at Roman civilization -- much less the doings of one itinerant religious figure in a distant province.
The more recent the claim, the better access we have to (potentially contradictory) documentation. This is why the Catholic Church minted thousands of saints back in the day, but doesn't do that quite as much anymore. Their process is very rigorous, and modern documentary methods make it much harder to establish the requisite miracles.
In the case of Scientology, Hubbard made a lot of outrageous claims about events in the world which were immediately subject to falsification. His claims were absurd -- not because they're particularly crazy compared to God stopping the sun in the Old Testament, but because of when he made them. You can't get away with Scientology-level goofiness in the modern world.
Mormonism has similar problems; if it were to be founded in 2007, it would be subjected to the same level of ridicule that Scientology is. It contradicts readily available evidence; the Book of Mormon features Native Americans riding around on horses (which they didn't have) and wielding iron swords (which they also didn't have); it makes disprovable genetic claims about the population of the Americas.
Christianity has had thousands of years to file away these rough edges, and purge the doctrine of anything that's trivial to contradict; this makes it a fairy tale that's easy for modern people to swallow.
It's not so much a judgement against Mormonism or Scientology as it is a judgement against someone who's willing to believe that nonsense. Christianity is also nonsense, but it's in a nice easy-to-digest form that makes belief in it somewhat more excusable.
Jay J. | December 21, 2006, 10:12pm | #
Jennifer,
My point about all these other religious examples is that there doesn't seem to be a level playing field here. Even when given the chance to show consistency, people usually just stick to bashing Mormonism, Scientology, and the like, even though there are many many other examples to choose from. There is a pattern here, its not like people bash the Nation of Islam and the Jewish religious practice of lopping off of baby boys penises as a religious practice as much as Mormons' funny underwear. I noticed you didn't respond when I gave you the chance to deal with the fact the Jews believe that it is their religious duty to lop off a part of their newborn’s penises, since you seem to find Mormon underwear so problematic. I’ll stop bringing that up as soon as someone who feels Mormons are unsuited because of their beliefs deals with this Jewish religious practice. Consistency proves sincerity, without it, I it seems like your engaging in politically correct piling on. It’s politically correct to bash Mormons, Scientologists, etc; when you’re willing to defend your beliefs to the extent of crossing the lines of political correctness, than I’ll tip my hat to you. You haven’t yet.
And for you to say it's a completely different subject isn't really fair, because the writer of the article mentioned other religions, and actually excused most of them. I’m simply responding to a claim made in the article which prompted this thread in the first place.
Moving on to a different subtopic, once again, miracle claims made more recently are not more or less plausible than claims made 2,000 years ago. What kind of convincing evidence would anyone expect to find if Jesus had allegedly walked on water 150 years ago rather than 2,000 years ago? So Mormonism makes disprovable claims about the genetic make-up of Native Americans? Does anyone seriously believe the Virgin Birth is a more plausible claim? Cuz if they do I suppose we’ll never see eye to eye. I mean, that’s like saying, “Man, Joseph Smith said Native Americans had horses and anthropological studies indicate otherwise, so that claim is obviously BS. But that Virgin Birth and walking on water and resurrection, I’ll tell ya what; those claims are so old I don’t guess there’s anything for us to say huh? Man, if they had just said that 200 years ago then we could call BS loudly, but since it was 2,000 years ago, I guess we’ll just call BS quietly.”
As I slap my forehead…
Jay J. | December 22, 2006, 12:07pm | #
Jennifer,
I was hoping you would deal with my concerns in the manner in which they were expressed. See, I didn't say that circumcision per se, was relevant to this topic. Rather, I said that the Jewish religious practice of circumcision was relevant to this topic. For you to say that you agree with me on circumcision is to avoid my concern. My concern is that there are protected classes. See I think that having protected classes is wrong in principle. This means that I think it was wrong when white people or men had certain privileges that women or minorities didn’t have. Yes, slavery, segregation, male domination, all those things were very bad and I’m not pretending that anything like that is happening to today’s unprotected classes like Mormons or Scientologists. But if I truly believe in the principle I espoused earlier, it means that I won’t go around applying it inconsistently or disproportionately. I disagree with the Mormon quasi-doctrine of the curse of Cain; I think it’s very silly and very unfortunate. I think the LDS church should come out and officially explain if it is still doctrine or not. I think they should tell us whether the priesthood ban against blacks was (in their mind) from God or if it was just a social convention that needed changing.
Back to the Jewish religious practice of circumcision: in Europe, most men are not circumcised, and they don’t suffer from infections at an alarming rate or anything. And Doctors no longer recommend it. They don’t recommend against it, necessarily, but they don’t recommend it either. Now, it’s going to be much easier for gentiles to gradually get away from this practice since they don’t see it as their religious duty. You mentioned Mormon underwear, and I’m still at a loss to figure out why you would care about such a thing. I’m giving you another chance to compare your criticism of Mormon underwear to the ‘Jewish religious practice of male circumcision.’ Not just circumcision OK? But the Jewish religious practice of circumcision.
Back to the topic of the Curse of Cain; which I’ve already explained that I find to be a silly (meaning ridiculous) and unfortunate doctrine. Mormons, like, revoked the priesthood ban over 25 years ago. The Nation of Islam, on the other hand, has never, to my knowledge, revoked the teaching that white people were created by an evil black scientist (who was jealous of the successful black scientists) over 7,000 years ago. This black scientist, in order to get revenge on his more successful colleagues, created a “bleached” race of people who lived “on all fours” in caves while the black man ruled the world. Now, I understand that the NOI doesn’t exactly say this as loudly as they once did, but they haven’t revoked it either, the way the LDS revoked the priesthood ban. But even if Mormonism hadn’t revoked their ban, the doctrine of the Curse of Cain isn’t nearly as vivid in its racist imagination as the Nation of Islam’s views on the origins of the white race.
In my opinion, those who are consistent in their views on religion will just as readily criticize the Nation of Islam or Judaism as they will Mormonism or Scientology. Criticizing the latter 2 is like breathing, everyone does it. So bashing groups that are fair game does not demonstrate real commitment. I hope this doesn’t step on your toes, but I’m beginning to suspect that you have fallen victim to the post-modern view that traditionally subjugated groups aren’t really responsible for their thoughts and actions while anything that resembles “the man” is the origin of the world’s distress. BTW, if this is your view, Mormons were a very persecuted people for many years, but in my mind, this is no excuse for the Curse of Cain doctrine. The same way the NOI has no good reason to believe the silly things that they do. Now, I realize that there are sociological, economic, and all sorts of other causes for both Mormon and NOI doctrines, but bad ideas are bad ideas.
I was hoping that you would criticize these other examples I’ve brought up not in the abstract, but in the particular, the way you did Mormon ideas about Cain and underwear. Lopping off part of a baby boy’s penis as a religious duty vs. underwear, believing black skin came from a curse vs. believing white people are an inferior and bleached race created by a black scientist.
The difference is that criticizing some of these is taboo while criticizing others is a national pastime.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
