My favorite comment on the controversy about Kennedy’s Catholicism came from his wife, Jackie: “I think it is so unfair for Jack to be opposed because he is a Catholic. After all, he’s such a poor Catholic.”

You've got to be kidding. He's been more or less forced into this speech by all the bigotry set out by people just like you. Why do you assume he's going to try to convert you when you haven't even heard what he's had to say yet?

devo was here

Supernovia: I don't recall saying that I was worried about being converted, but let me check . . . . Nope. You made that one up out of nothing. I'm worried that our country is being pushed into a kind of religious madness--precisely the sort our forefathers worried about when they looked back (in anger) at Europe and determined that religion's place in government was no place at all. And while I haven't heard what Mitt has to say, I've heard enough of what he's said to know that it's unlikely he'll come out as a constitutional absolutist on this one. But please: since you raise the issue, why aren't you afraid of religion in government? --w

I just got this letter from . . . someone:

Hi there... I just wanted to point out something in your article. You said, "Can a Mormon who believes in magic glasses and golden tablets win the White House?"

I find it strange that you would put this because it sends a message that Mormons are wacky and insane. Look at the Bible. Bible believers believe there was a talking donkey... the red sea was parted by an old man... God wrote 10 commandments in stone with his finger... etc.

Biblical teachings are "wacky" when you look at them from a worldly point of view... so why are Mormons portrayed as weird for their additional beliefs in things that sound just as strange to the unbeliever? I feel it's wrong to send the message you did because people simply won't understand any of the context behind it.

If you met with someone who had never heard of Christianity before and you tried to explain it... he/she would think you're insane. But since most people don't understand what Mormonism really is, it's not really a good idea to bring up complicated/confusing aspects of the faith that would require an additional venue for clarification without providing such a resource to the reader.

Mark

So, Mark: In finding aspects of Mormonism wacky (your word, by the way) or indefensible, I didn't mean to imply that my own Christian faith is free of nutty conservative interpretations. All religions are pretty equally nuts--outside a very liberal interpretation. For instance, I read the Bible as literature--a story which is meant to get at the truth by implication--rather than as an historical document. But many American Christians really believe in virgin births, parted seas, talking plants and etc.--really believe these things are historical facts. I find that troubling, and I gather that you do as well, and I sure wouldn't want another president who was fundamentalist in his/her reading of the Bible--or the Koran or the Book of Mormon. I mean, seriously: you think these fundies are equipped to lead America in a multicultural world? You must admit the experiment (GW Bush) has been thus far pretty unsuccessful. As far as discussing Mormonism: I did provide an "additional venue for clarification": you're in it now. --w

Mark responds:

Thanks for the response. Yes.. I know the "wacky" word was of my own
usage. I just feel that the great majority of readers don't take the
time to do what I'm doing so when they read your article... they
think... "Mormons believe in magic glasses and gold tablets? Man..
they're weird." So, they walk away with an opinion and most never take
the time to really find out what that really means. Those magic glasses
are in reference to the Urim and Thummim... and if you're a Bible
believer, you believe in. The Bible is just mute about what exactly the
Urim and Thummim really is for or what it looks like. Mormons just have
an explanation for it but referring to it as "magic glasses"
inadvertently makes people think weird things. Trust me.. having been a
Mormon for 19 years... I've heard it all and have seen the reactions of
people when certain words are used to describe something in our faith...
you know.. like "magic underwear"... which we don't believe in. I just
thought it would have been best to have referred to them a the Urim and
Thummim instead of "magic glasses". After all... the term "magic"
removes God from their usage and instead implies weird sorcery or
ungodly powers when in reality we believe they are a tool of God for use
by man. Just a thought.. that's all.

"Magic glasses"? Wow, you guys stray too much from the truth.

Debrar: From what truth have we strayed? --w

Setting aside the debate over Mormonism, I gotta agree with Will: hiring a fundamentalist of any stripe to run the country--at this juncture--is ill-advised. I don't think that things are going to be particularly comfy for the next decade or so, and it is worth remembering that our last few periods of economic growth were wholly reliant on bubbles--ie speculation--and not production. Nope, we're in for a bumpy ride, and the last thing I want is to be led by a guy who believes that we're approaching the End Times.

The entire Fox news network and the spawn of William Kristol have done their best to convince the entire country that Enlightenment ideals--secular government being one--are quaint, arrogant, classist. Do any of them even know when the Enlightenment was? And is it so terrible for me to expect them to know? As Jon Weiner indicates, anti-intellectualism is often the the harbinger of a nasty societal shift. Consider that our last president almost didn't get the job because he had the temerity, the perversity, to accept a scholarship at Oxford. And our last president, well.....

Want a detailed description of Stone's J-Curve in action? Pick up Barbara Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror" and read the gruesome introduction. And since Will quoted two eminent scholars and I've only quoted one, well, I offer the assessment of Harold Bloom: "We are entering a new theocratic age."

(there, will. I'm two for two.)

uh-oh, error: I meant to say, "And our current president" at the end of 2nd graf.

I understand the point of the article, but it was done poorly. "Can a Mormon who believes in magic glasses and golden tablets win the white house?" Are you kidding me. If your going to make a point about the separation of church and state try not to insult a religion with false comments which, obviously, you know nothing about. The founding fathers believed that religion had no role? Oh yeah, like when they talk about being endowed by a creator, divine providence, in God we trust, or the countless number of times the founding fathers have stated, in their own histories, how thier faith has helped them during difficult times in office. Once again, it is obvious that your talking about something you know nothing about. I get your main point, and yes their is reason for concern. That concern, should not come from Romney since the point he has been trying to make is that he believes in the separation of church and state. Romney will explain how his Mormon faith is a very good thing for America? Who said this? I'm not criticizing, I checked the link and I couldn't find it. If that statement was from the Romney camp please give me the source. If he didn't, then what's up with that?

William--

I'm going to sound like an annoying quibbler, but I must take issue with a few of your statements. Regarding "in God we trust," you can find the following information on the website for the US Treasury:

"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins."

The founding fathers had absolutely nothing to do with it; horrific carnage and a complete breakdown of civil society was the impetus.

As for being "endowed by a creator." It is crucial to remember that all of western society had, up to that point, been structured on the belief that God himself appointed all men to their station, that there was a divine decision involved in finding yourself in the first, second, or third estate, a member of royalty or a serf--in other words, that God had established the status quo and all those French revolutionaries were demented for thinking that they could alter it. This was still a time when commoners thought that a touch from the King or Queen could banish disease (Samuel Johnson was one of the last Englishmen granted the honor, to cure scrofula). The founders were very consciously overturning/co-opting that mode of thinking by arguing that freedom was the divine birthright of all men. (Slavery, of course, is problematic.)

And the founding fathers may have written of their own personal religiosity, but that is a far cry from advocating national observance. And I think that they knew that.

Rachel,
Your right on the "In God we trust" thing. Sorry for the misinformation. The point I'm trying to make, however, was that no one can say for sure that the founding fathers believed that religion should not have a role in Government. I do believe in the separation church and state, but I'm afraid that people try to overstep boundaries on both sides of the argument. I think that it is embarrasing that Romney has to explain his religious doctrines to become President. I understand that people want to make sure that his church will not influence his Presidency, but he's already said that it wont. Can he do anymore than that? It's obvious that Christian Conservatives (mostly extremists) just want to put him on the "hot seat" to pick at doctrinal issues which would be impossible to explain in that amount of time and through that type of forum. Sorry, I'm kind of ranting now. Back to the article. Why did he bash Romney and Mormonism to make his point about religion in government. Romney seems to be a victim of his point (which is valid by the way), and Mormonism has always stated that members should always obey, honor, and sustain the law. (LDS 12th article of faith) This would apply to any mormon as President and the Constitution would fall under the law part. I'm not the brightest person in the world, so if I'm just missing the connection, please clarify.

William: Whatever ancillary evidence you have ("In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God"), you can't get over the First Amendment: looking back over the previous three centuries, the framers saw the certainty of a dangerous chemistry: Mix religion and government and you get war. They knew that the their young country would have a better chance of survival in that theocratic world if government was separated from religion--all religion. Never mind the yawning chasm between, say, Hinduism and Islam we face today: these guys looked at European history and saw Christians murdering Christians over minor doctrinal issues--which, as you point out, is the sort of BS theologizing we see in the conflict over Romney. And that, finally, was my point: Romney, Bush, Huckabee: they're equally terrifying to me. They're men who believe in a narrow, literal interpretation of their respective Books, and they're ready to try to leverage those Books in their political campaigns. Conservatives? Nonsense. They're Christofascists.

So your point basically is that your afraid of your own assumption that Romney or these other canidates will insert their religion into the Government. In what specific issues are you afraid that Romney will do this? Does he have a record of doing this? And how does this validate your insult on Mormonism. I agree that they each have different interpretations of their scriptures, but since when has Romney tried to leverge "those books" in his political campaign? Provide support, don't just assume.

I can't even pretend to understand your point, William. I think I was pretty clear about my fear: that the shredding of the Constitution beginning under Bush--especially the destruction of the establishment clause--seems to have become not a side effect but a primary goal of the Republican Party; now even a guy like Romney feels it important to argue over the finer points of Christian doctrine in order to persuade voters that his brand o Christian theology is right for the White House. I If you're not bothered by that fact--by Romney's capitulation to the evangelical Right--then you've proved my point: many Americans, including you, William, are numb to the end of the democratic experiment launched over 200 years in America. Good night, and good luck.

Once again you've provided no support for your point on Romney. I never mentioned Bush (who I did not vote for by the way). If your tryihg to say that all republicans that end up in the white house is going to be like bush, than your argument is quite shallow. Haven't you noticed that the republican canidates have been separating themselves from Bush and trying to tie themselves to Reagan? Now even Romney feels it important to argue over the finer points of Christian doctrine in order to persuade voters that his brand of Christian theology is right for the White House? Another huge assumption which has absolutely no grounds. This doesn't sound like fear to me, it sounds more like paranoia. If you would recall, It was Romney who has tried to avoid this speech since the beginning of his campaign. He hasn't even spoken yet and you have already reached a conclusion. You say that I'm numb? Why, because I base my conclusion on Romney's record. Remember, I'm not talking about Bush here. By the way, you still haven't explained your insult on Mormonism. Let me guess, you assume that Mormons are crazy also with out knowing the facts of the religion. I sense a trend. Good luck to you and Good morning!!!...It's time for you to wake up!

William:

I didn't say Mormons are wacky--or at least not uniquely so. I said religious fundamentalists are wacky--so wacky that they've demanded Mitt Romney balance the unsupportable claims of Mormonism against the equally unsupportable claims of mainstream Christianity.

I don't care what Romney believes, really, but I'd be more comfortable knowing that he doesn't believe in the literal truth of the Book of Mormon (which, yeah, I've read). Bush's fundamentalist certainties drove us to war; in the confusion following his massive and catastrophic failures as a president, evangelicals are looking for a replacement: Romney could be their boy--if he can persuade them he's more fundamental in his faith than, say, Huckabee. But he won't be able to do that. The snakehandlers will continue to pick at Mormons; the rest of us more mainstream believers will be put off by the intrusion of faith in politics. Back to the First Amendment.

Mitt Romney is not running for "American Pastor", He is running for President. With all of the important issues facing this country today it is sad that we are getting so caught up in his faith. National debt, illegal immigration, border Security, the war in Iraq, Abortion, Same sex Marriage, Stem-cell research, ... the list goes on and on. Does Mitt Romney have the vision for the America that you hope for or not? If so, vote for him. If not, find the person who does and raise hell about him/her in your communities!
But don't let a man's personal faith be the issue of the day or we will have to add bigotry to that long list that is found above.

"Can a Mormon who believes in magic glasses and golden tablets win the White House?"

Can anyone who believes in walking on water and raising the dead win the White House? I think you've failed to ask the same questions about any other world religion, major or not. What a perfect example of a religious test!

Will:

I am glad that you don't care what Romney believes. From the article, however, it look like you did, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In the end, I agree with what Mike wrote. I leave it at that, unless you have anything to add.

Mike makes an entirely sensible point: Mitt Romney is not running for “American Pastor."

Except that he is, just an ecumenical version.
(I wrote a bit about this yesterday for the Daily Briefing.)

the problem with the internet is that any myth believing knuckledragger can mobilize an army of moronic fellows to "defend" their chosen cult from realities ugly intrusion.