Michael Gerson thinks Mitt Romney needs to talk more about his Mormon faith. Intuitively, this sounds like terrible advice. People believe in revelation when it is shrouded in the distant past. When it comes from a guy who peered into hats less than 200 years ago, people just think it’s weird. It’s hard to talk about your Mormon faith without trying to explain and, to some extent, justify your beliefs. Does Mitt Romney want to drop his criticism of Obama’s handling of the economy to discuss his belief in extraterrestrial life?
But I can’t dismiss Mr. Gerson’s advice out of hand. I think he is on to something with this:
Romney’s pressing need to inject some authenticity — or at least some personality — into his campaign is the primary reason he should talk more about his faith. Take away Romney’s religion and you are left with Harvard, Bain and various corporate boardrooms. Mormonism has been one of the main stages for his leadership, as well as the main setting where he has displayed humanity. He has been a missionary, a lay minister, a spiritual guide. He has delivered sermons, counseled couples and worked with leaders of other faiths. Mormonism is the reason for Romney’s rectitude, the explanation for his wholesomeness, the key to understanding his persona. Without it, he would merely be a stiff, able management consultant. Romney’s reticence on religion leaves a large personal and biographical gap.
As I have discussed before, Romney seems to have a giant emptiness at his core. And there seems to be no position he won’t deviate from if it suits him. Maybe this impression is amplified by his decision to Etch A Sketch his religious faith out of his campaign.
I think it was rykiah who said it first but I wholeheartedly agree – it is likely that Romney paid more in tithes than in taxes, and if it is true that he actually paid no taxes for 10 years then he might not want to mention much about his religion. What’s more is that considering Romney’s rank in the organization his tax returns could tell us a lot about the business of the Mormon church that Romney may not want us to know.
Understand, I don’t think it’s a bad thing if he tithes more than he pays in taxes – that’s true of me too – but I’m not running for president. I’m not pledging to promote and defend America above all else – he is – so this is all fair game.
Bearing in mind, of course, that “tithe” literally means to pay 10%, which is well under all the tax rates that the US rank-and-file are accustomed to paying.
You are talking about marginal rates, the rate you pay on the last dollar you earn. I think I’m fairly typical. My marginal rate is 15%. My actual rate (total federal income tax divided by total annual income) is about 8%.
All I’m talking about is that the word “tithe” means literally to set aside a tenth part of one’s income for religious charity. I don’t have the faintest clue as to marginal rates, or pixie dust, or who precisely is Bob’s uncle.
That’s all I’m talking about.
My understanding of tithing is that it’s based on gross income. As such, it can be a pretty big chunk, and I don’t recommend it for just everybody.
Thus far, no. This is like the right-wing impetus that forced Obama to give his historic address on race relations, A More Perfect Union, in response to the Rev. Wright BS non-story. For starters, Romney isn’t capable of delivering (much less composing) such a broad-ranging, comprehensive, and masterful address on an issue like racism (or religious bigotry, take your pick) as what the then Senator from Illinois was able to produce on short order in the middle of a bitterly contested primary.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have that speech burned to dvd and revisit it every few months or so, to see how the message wears. Short story: it keeps gaining relevance and depth as time goes on. I fully expect, if our civilization lasts another 100 years or so, that this speech will take a place in history alongside the Gettysburg Address, Pericles’ Funeral Oration, and similar inspired and timely missives.
Two points of order here: 1) there will be no left-wing attack on the Mormon faith that will require Mittens to even attempt such a rhetorical feat, because that’s not how we roll on the left, although 2) there is a highly remote chance that such an attack might come from the fundamentalist right, in which case, his Mormonism comes into the full spotlight of public discussion and becomes a point of ridicule, likely dragging into orbit other faiths of recent coinage such as Scientology, Rastafarianism and Coptic Christianity.
It’ll never happen. God^TM knows why the GOP thought this was the year to promote a Mormon candidate, but given the religious and secular makeup of the nation as it stands, they’d be worse that Teabagger-stupid to force the issue into the public consciousness.
Two points of order here: 1) there will be no left-wing attack on the Mormon faith that will require Mittens to even attempt such a rhetorical feat, because that’s not how we roll on the left, …
You are correct. Also, too, There is no need to bother with Willard’s religion, no matter the effectiveness, because Willard has so many skeletons(Bain alone really .. but others as well) in his closet that attacks on those are more than enough to defeat him.
A) I agree with Gerson’s advice to the extend that the only thing authentic about Romney seems to be his Mormonism. I think that’s truly part of him. I think it’s the one thing he wouldn’t change, to become President.
B) I wish we did roll that way, because attacks on his religion would undermine his base support, while attacks on Bain, taxes, flip-flops, creepiness, pale besides the, well, paleness issue.
Except attacking a candidate because of his religious faith strikes a blow directly at the core genius of the founders. It is the single most un-American thing you can do. It’s why I went berserk when people attacked the black church in 2008.
You think it’s more un-American than attacking a candidate because of his race or her gender? Frankly, I think it’s far, far more un-American to, say, implement the Ryan plan.
I’m not suggesting that we scream about magic underpants. I’m suggesting that we–quite legitimately–ask how the specifics of Romney’s faith will inform the specifics of his policies. That will be read as an attack. That will be an attack. But it’s legit. He talks about being a man of faith. Fine. Do tell.
I’m pretty tired of all these people of faith who skate by on bland reassurances. If he believes he’s going to be the king of his own planet after he dies–and I have no idea if that’s truly Mormon dogma–that is an utterly, utterly legitimate thing to discuss. He’s a candidate for president. His core beliefs are not off the table, even when they’re out of the mainstream–and even when discussing them is the equivalent of attacking.
I want to say that ignoring the core beliefs of a politician, and expressing an unwillingness to truly examine him or her, strikes a blow directly at the core genius of the founders, but I don’t believe in the founders like that.
Racism is as American as apple pie.
That is substantially a quote from a black leader of the ’60s or ’70s. I don’t remember who. It’s as true now as then, unfortunately.
Since racism and attacks on religion come from the right, we don’t have to worry about it. Romney won’t talk about Mormonism because it’s toxic with his core constituency. My wife and I have good friends who are recovering fundamentalists. They were raised that way and lived that way until they couldn’t take the hypocrisy anymore. Both of them were raised on a steady of diet of Mormon-hatred. Neither of them can quite imagine the people they know setting aside that hatred to vote for Romney. The only thing that makes it plausible is their utter mystification at having a black family in “their” White House.
Just to clarify, my prior reference to “them” points to our friends’ family members and former friends. Our friends themselves have completely opened their minds. They support Obama.
Do you know why the president and the vice-president are not allowed to be from the same state?
Do you know why we have two senators per state?
It’s because it was very difficult to get our colonies to agree to be governed by people of other sects.
Our thirteen original colonies were basically religious sanctuaries for minority sects, with the exception of Virginia which was Anglican.
The genius of the Founders was their ability to craft together a solution that would protect everyone’s right to worship how they pleased even if their president was a Congregationalist or a Methodist or a Quaker or a Deist.
The entire point was to teach us not to disqualify each other from public service because we disagreed over issues of religious doctrine.
That is more fundamental than race or gender. It was the first problem that had to be solved. It was the key that unlocked the door for equality for all.
That was more fundamental -to the while male founders than race or gender because race and gender were so utterly beyond-fundamental that they weren’t even acknowledged. Water, fish.
Also, original intent, meh.
Also also, if Kucinich’s belief in aliens is an appropriate point of political discussion–and I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t be–than why can’t we talk about Romney’s belief in planetary rule after death? (If that’s not scurrilous rumor.)
I’m serious about that last question, because I simply don’t understand. You’re saying that any belief that is labeled religious cannot be legitimately hammered on in the political arena?
I suspect there are many exceptions to that guildline, and I wonder if there is any logic beyond ‘it feels right in this case and wrong in that one.’
Are we going to have Obama explain whether or not he believes the story of the loaves and fishes, or that Jesus beamed up to heaven in the Assumption like a Star Trek crew member?
Naturally, people think other people’s religious beliefs are crazy and they will talk. But a politician who engages in that tactic is being untrue to our roots and our unique gift to humanity.
Shit. Even John McCain understood that.
Sure. Absolutely. Obama has talked about that shit. I haven’t read his books, but isn’t it a pretty big theme in one of them? I’d love to see him asked the questions in greater detail, though. Why not?
And Romney’s even more vocal about being a Man of Faith. But we’re not allowed to know what that faith entails? If the Mormon Church still taught the inferiority of blacks, you’d think that was off the table?
Of course you wouldn’t. So what’s the difference?
In fact, I distinctly remember a great deal more leftie investigation of Christian Dominionism re. Perry than of Mormonism re. Romney. Did the former bother you, if you noticed it?
Big difference between not establishing a state religion and the religion of a politician being off-limits for criticism. An atheist that holds or subscribes to no creepy or imaginary belief system can’t even consider running for POTUS. And if history is any guide, given another century or so, an atheist will still be rejected but a welcome sign will be hung for a Scientologist.
Gambling is contrary to the Mormon religion. Let’s ask Romney about his paling around with Adelson.
New coinage?
I had a couple philosphy courses in university in which I heard Coptic Christianity dismissed as a modern attempt to attach to an established religious lineage in order to have an excuse to smoke pot. There are such people. I’ve got nothing against them, just saying that they attract ridicule and derision in certain stratified regions.
Wait.. I’m a Coptic? Sweeeeet..
I’m not the one to tell you. I think they have a spot in Religulous. If that’s you, then, sweeeeet. Good times.
Just more religious hatred. The church split many centuries ago. Coptic Christianity is practiced in the Middle East and is centered around Egypt, where 10% of the population is Christian.
I’ve heard similar things said about Sufism, which is the mystical branch of Islam.
Hatred? That’s some pretty strong tea you’re brewing. What do you mean, specifically? “Religious hatred,” or just “hatred?” Fwiw, I harbor neither toward anyone.
I thought then and do now that religions promoting beliefs in fantastical apparitions and historical episodes are equally nonsensical, childish, and detrimental to human evolution. Whether your particular fantasy was said to occur 5000 years ago or last Thursday is of no importance.
Mysticism is another matter, as is ritual and reverence toward certain ideals and practices. But when “belief” is invoked, we’re generally in for a rough ride.
uh, yeah. But you get to smoke the diggity-dank, so suck it.
Well this is touching. Apparently I have fan.
It seems like your philosophy courses were off-target: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts
Coptic Christianity predates—by centuries—Protestant Christianity.
They were probably talking about this.
What on earth are you talking about? First of all it is completely untrue (or was that your point? — but what is your point?) Second of all, why would that be talked about in a philosophy course, let alone a couple of philosophy courses?
I was just trying to track back where I got the mental association of Coptic Christianity with marijuana usage. It came from a teacher in one of those classes (just survey courses), and I think actually the point he made was about some group of modern-day Americans claiming some sort of Coptic faith and that smoking pot was one of their sacraments. The religion itself wasn’t of recent coinage, rather it was this particular group of adherents who otherwise had no connection to Coptic anything. As to why or how it came up in that class, I have no idea, as it was 20 some-odd years ago.
My point was that older religions (at least those that are still being followed in any significant numbers) are generally respected, whereas newer religions tend to be more readily dismissed in the mainstream as cults. I was just reaching for some gratuitous examples and pulled out a bad one. It’s a mistake, true, but one that has nothing to do with the larger point.
If I had argued something like, “It’s a healthy daily habit to eat fresh vegetables like carrots, cucumbers and tomatoes,” and then someone pointed out that tomatoes aren’t really vegetables, it does nothing to the argument itself. The vegetables in question are just gratuitous examples and carry no real weight to my assertion. It wouldn’t merit an entire side discussion on what is and isn’t a vegetable–or probably not to most people, anyway.
Thanks for the explanation. As for your last point, sure, except how could someone get that you were referring to any kind of new religion with a rather pop form of sacrament, when the Coptic church is in fact a very ancient form of traditional Christianity?
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/4_eucharist.html
I don’t know if a “left-wing attack” is really the issue. Secretive religious outfits are less afraid of attacks, which they can dismiss as from “infidels”, commies, etc., than of simple scrutiny and the jokes that inevitably follow. There will be a reaction from the Christianist Right, but it may be of less consequence than the removal of its “special” untouchable status as “faith”. Once discussion of whether it’s Christianity reopens anything could happen.
Your point about dragging other recent religions into orbit is interesting. It’s ironic, somehow, that a political campaign could let down the cultural barriers to open questioning about “authentic religion”. Don’t know about your Coptic inclusion, but there are many candidates for such an examination; Urantia, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and endless even smaller outfits and offshoots. Not to mention all the Catholic rebels ranging from Opus Dei to the rebel nuns. Opening that box would be a terrible thing for politics, but maybe a cleansing relief for the culture as a whole.
Try not to be too distracted about the Coptic inclusion. It was just an example to illustrate a larger point. If it was a bad selection on my part, it does nothing to undermine the overall argument. As you’ve listed, there are more ready examples of religions of recent coinage than I or you or both of us could list off the top of our heads.
Coptic Christianity is extremely old and has nothing to do with smoking pot.
Awww.. That really is too bad. I guess I’ll put my Haile Selassie I posters back up.
Romney has done more than Etch-a-Sketched his faith. In many people’s minds, he has replaced it. Romney’s perceived faith is above all else money, damn the social consequences. Romney’s faith is in Soylent Green.
Soylent Green is people, too, my friend.
I don’t think money is so much his faith, I think it’s his culture. It reminded me of a quote from Hegel–or I thought it was Hegel but am having trouble running it down now–about how people swim about in culture unawares as to its existence in a like manner that fish swim in water. Romney swims about in money and privilege, and he genuinely doesn’t understand how other people who don’t swim in those waters could possibly fail to appreciate his “humanitarian” overtures to them. Hoi Polloi doesn’t even approach the revulsion he must feel to the ungrateful hoards he sees on his doorstep.
^hoardes.
^ hordes
Romney hoards his wealth in hordes of secret places.
You’re welcome
F/P. Thanks for the correction.
I had a college course on religion where the prof started the course out with a question of what is religion? Beyond the ho hum he posited the idea that religion isn’t by necessity a belief in a higher being but instead a core that you hold up above all else.
So yes, Romney may label himself a Mormon but his core belief is indeed that money is the answer to any situation.
Were it up to Romney, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a foreign policy of show me the money and I won’t bomb you.
A better politician than Mitt Romney could take his Mormon faith and turn it into something humanizing, and something he has in common with the typical church-going American despite the odd-seeming details. However, given the way that Mitt Romney can make a story about a family road trip sound bizarre and alienating, I’d hate to see how he’d handle a subject where people are inclined to thing he’s a bit weird in the first place.
here’s the thing about Willard and his faith
Willard was 31 years old when the ‘policy’ was changed…you really gonna tell me that he changed with it?
I say hell no. Look at his record for ‘ diversity’ while he was at Bain – NO BLACK PEOPLE
and when he was Governor – where were the Black folk?
look at his own campaign…..there are enough slave catchers that he could hire some…it was so bad that he was called out by JC WATTS.
JC WATTS!
I also believe that it should be investigated, because, after reading the Mormon, Inc. story, I fully believe Willard not only did deals with the Mormon Church, probably as part of his tithing, but used their ‘Church’ status to avoid paying taxes.
so, hell yes, I welcome a discussion of Mormonism.
Maybe someone ought to ask him…since you’ve been a good tithing Mormon, can you explain – you are a higher up – how a church that gets 10% from members, only gives LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF ITS TAKE TO CHARITY – to those in need. And, no, I don’t count whatever they do for Mormons. I wanna know what they do – WITH REGARDS TO CHARITY – for those who are NOT MORMON.
It could either work or backfire, and I don’t know which would be more likely. Were it to backfire, I think it would be due to the contrast between this image of Romney as a supposedly religious and moral guy, on the one hand, and his rather cold dealings at Bain, on the other. Does a devoutly religious man lay people off, cause them to lose healthcare, etc.? Would it seem pandering/insulting at this point to play the religion card, given all of this information and innuendo about his work at Bain? I wonder.
The bible-thumpers are always the best at screwing people whether speaking metaphorically or literally.
There’s also a good chance it would backfire for the Mormon church. If this odd and secretive religion produces amoral high clergy like Romney, what good is it? Is Romney typical of Mormon values?
I would think his religious superiors have already put the kabosh on his opening the church up to that kind of questioning.
Plus, he’s been steering clear of it for a reason: the Christianists are lulled at the moment, but stirring them up can only erode a large part of his base.
Strategically I’d be hoping he does fall into the trap, but the campaign is already ugly enough without bringing religion explicitly into it. A campaign hijacked by theological dispute is nothing but a distraction from real issues, and serves no one.
The theological debate would be entirely among Republicans – nobody who’s voting for Obama gives two bits about Romney’s theology and whether or not he’s a Christian. If an ugly campaign means the splintering and marginalization of the GOP then I say bring it on!
The discussion of “should he talk about his faith, or shouldn’t he” is the same as “should he talk about his taxes, or shouldn’t he.” It raises the question, without necessarily demanding a hard position from the left. It just puts Mormonism out there. It fits into “what else is he hiding?” Go for it.
LOL.
This is so true:
“Romney’s pressing need to inject some authenticity”
The problem is that Romney doesn’t have any authenticity other than as a financial shark who would do nearly anything quasi-legal to make a buck.
As for my take, I’ve met a number of Mormons and have Mormon family friends. I respect their “faith” for the emphasis on “clean living” for want of a better phrase. They are trying to be good people in their lives.
But Mormonism is IMHO an inauthentic religion. The founder, Joseph Smith, was a scam artist. For starters he made ridiculous assertions about his so called scripture. (See Book of Abraham in Wiki)
Mitt has no rock to run to.
Bottom line: Mormon cooties.
This is a nation that arguably couldn’t elect a Catholic (if you adhere to the idea that Kennedy won his election unfairly), and has never even tried to field a Jewish candidate for President.
You can’t have a beard in this country if you want to run for President. Not only can you not be an atheist, you have to pass through a crucible of favorite biblical quotes and heroes and who even knows what in order to have a shot. We’re not supposed to have a religious litmus test, but like clockwork the liberal media is there every 4 years to make sure that it happens.
Women can’t get even win a damn presidential primary, so far. In the history of this entire country, we’ve only ever had one viable candidate.
I would bet serious money which I unfortunately don’t have, that the general run of US humanity views Mormonism askance at about the same angle as they do Scientology. If Mitt embraced and promoted his faith in the public eye, I would bet most Americans would experience a flashback of Tom Cruise hopping up and down madly on Oprah’s sofa.
It’s not going to happen. Until we have a major breakthrough in this country, it’s meat-and-potatoes God-is-my-savior for President, sincerity notwithstanding.
Challenge accepted.
In this century.
Can I count on your vote in 2024, based solely on my promise to sport a beard?
Why won’t Romney release his tax records?
It could be because he is a Mormon.
Mormons are required to tithe. If Romney has been cheating the church, releasing the taxes could get him into serious trouble with his religious buddies.
That may be the real reason ….
I think this is a red herring. If you chase down the various permutations of this theory, they invariably lead to one rabbit-hole or another. Romney is unquestionably rich. His church knows that, and he does or has occupied a high position in their hierarchy.
If the Mormon Church is some sort of Evil Empire of American politics, they’d better do something about Harry Reid tout MFing suite, because he’s spoiling the whole Mormon party with his tax noises.
Perplexed why so many lefty bloggers suspect that Mitt is hiding his tax returns from his church. If there were any problems with Mitt’s tithing, he would long ago have secured a retroactive blessing of how he’s managed this aspect of his faithfulness to the church. It’s really not credible that the leadership of his church wouldn’t do anything and everything possible to advance one of their own elevated to POTUS; it’s one of their divine missions after all.
Ah yes, here we go: Mormonism is essentially retroactive Christianity. As interpreted by viewing certain no-longer-existing golden plates through a hat with some rocks in it, none of which happen to exist anymore, either. But it’s retroactive.
Mr. Nothing isn’t going to discover a heart by giving us some god talk. You’re not going to fill a great sucking void by throwing in some pious statements, even if he was able to pull them off (which he shows no indication of).
I’d love for him to try to talk about about his religion as effectively as he talked about the Olympics and Israel.
As a large portion of the GOP base views Mormonism as an inauthentic religion, Mitt coming out as an authentic Mormon sounds like a good idea to seal his loser status.
Right. If Mitt has the barest hope of squeaking by the GOP xtian fundie base, his best and surest hope is to keep his Mormon faith shut up in the attic like the crazy aunt in a Bronte novel.
Charlotte Bronte locked up the crazy wife — possibly a socially more dangerous concept than the crazy aunt or uncle locked in the attic that seems to have come later in the Gothic horror genre.
Right. My bad. It’s a hell of an analogy, one way or the other.
I am still waiting for someone to ask Romney the question, “If you win, what will you use when taking the oath of office, the Bible or the Book of Mormon?” Doesn’t challenge his faith, doesn’t ridicule his faith, just a simple question.
However, if he refuses to answer, that hurts him, and either answer also hurts him.
What did he use to take the Oath of Office for Governor of MA?
Don’t know, but will try to find out.
It was the Bible.
He could easily and legitimately use a Christian Bible. The “Book of Moroni” is an adjunct, not a replacement.
Only if he has one. Folks can spot phonies.
So do we expect Rick Warren to not hold his “religious debate” tht he held in ’08? Cause if he does hold it, then the question is will Romney go? I suspect that Warren will not hold the forum this election cycle
I suspect you’re right.
LAKE FOREST, Calif. (BP) — Pastor Rick Warren says he hopes to host another forum between the major two presidential candidates this year — similar to what took place in 2008 — although no formal agreement is in place.
Rick Warren
The pastor of Saddleback Church in California told reporters during a conference call Monday (July 16) that he has reached out to the campaigns of President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, FoxNews.com reported.
The purpose of the forum is “to promote social civility so that people with major disagreements [can] talk without beating each other up,” Warren said.
The forum would last two hours, FoxNews.com reported him as saying, and he is looking at hosting it the week of Aug. 20
Sorry, I received a phone call before I was able to add the link:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=38286&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0717
faith or no faith, he has no problem in taking dirty money from a gambler. and many others for that matter. you are right. money is his god.
My admittedly limited sampling of church-going Southern Baptists and Church of Christ members tells me that Romney’s Mormonism is not an issue that will deter them from trying to remove the first black President from White House.
There’s a famous quote about a Senator asked about a Mormon Senator from Utah. The first Senator responded, “A polygamist who doesn’t polyg is a damn sight better than this bunch of monogamists who don’t monog.” There’s that strange air of tolerance about Republican unity this year. Unless there are some donations to Planned Parenthood in Romney’s tax returns from the period in which he was a “liberal” Massachusetts governor.
This is just another example of something Romney might, theoretically, want to talk about, except that he can’t. (Along with the MA health care program and his great business experience at Bain.)
Michael Gerson appears to know nothing of Mormonism. Really, honestly, Romney is better off not talking about it.
The only way he could is if he were to follow the current Mormon approach of presenting Mormonism as a kind of Christianity (which it isn’t, by the way, IMHO). Now this may work for the Mormon missionary effort, but it is guaranteed to stir up the fundies in a way not at all good for Romney or Mormonism.
I thought Romney was a Mormon Bishop too. I think Romney does not talk about his faith due to its many conflicts with hard right Evangelicals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/mitt-romney-mormon-bishop_n_1386592.html