The Boston Globe on Evangelicals and Mormons
I do not want to hear another journalist talk about anything who dis not get a degree in history.
Please read this:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-05-30-1.html
and this:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-05-23-1.html
and this:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-04-18-1.html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-06-1.html
McCarthyism is going on whenever people lie or omit or twist or distort the truth in order to smear their rivals and opponents and gain advantage for their pet cause — whether the cause is liberal or conservative.
It’s bad enough when politicians lie for their own advantage, like a certain President who committed perjury in order to win in a lawsuit brought by a victim of his sexual harassment.
But we expect our news media to regard truth as their highest value. That’s the business they’re in — telling us the truth. That’s the solemn promise they make. And if they embrace McCarthyism — if they knowingly or carelessly repeat lies, or omit truths that would transform the meaning of their story, in order to advance even the most righteous cause — then where can we turn for the truth?
Edward R. Murrow had our trust because he earned it. Lots of later journalistshave copied his stern demeanor, his just-the-facts style, and thought that meant they were in his league. But to my distress, and to the great damage of our country, it seems that fewer and fewer of them have his stern commitment to telling only the truth — and all of the truth — and letting the public reach their own conclusions.
He took on a monster and helped set the stage for the monster’s fall.
Shame on those who claim to be his successors, but in fact are really the successors of the monster.
I hope their numbers are few. But they do keep cropping up in the loftiest places, breaking down our trust in even our most reliable institutions. Who in America is surprised when anti-semites in Palestine and France conspire to tell lies about Jews? But when an American reporter omits a dead soldier’s fervent testament about the war and spins the quote he does use to serve exactly the opposite ideological purpose, and does it in the news pages of the New York Times, then maybe McCarthyism isn’t so very dead after all.
and this one:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-11-14-1.html
If I were running a newspaper, I would hire only history majors to be reporters, and completely shun the graduates of the almost-universally-Leftist journalism departments — not on political grounds, but on the grounds of competence. History students are still taught to work from facts, and to keep in mind a broad understanding of where the facts fit into a larger story.
(The only exception is that for science reporting, I’d hire only reporters who can actually read and understand 75 percent of the articles in the average issue of Scientific American. An even smaller group than history majors.)
Why would it take an entire major’s worth of study to learn what talented cub reporters used to pick up in three months on the job? (Don’t bother writing in; the question is rhetorical.) Every credit hour of indoctrination in journalism is time that could have been spent on getting an education.
This one actually applies directly to the point I am trying to make:
Why should reporters’ speculation on unknowable motives be given even one second of my reading time, when the reporters prove themselves in every paragraph to be historically ignorant and unaware of their own inadequacy?
Why should we listen to reporters speculate as to what motivates Mitt Romney “unknowable motives”?
Recently they got all bent out of shape, and pronounced that more people died in Iraq than on September 11th, as though this was supposed to be significant. These people did not mention any of the statistics from this site:
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm
Neither do they mention the fact that 2,335 servicemen died at Pearl Harbor but 291,557 service members died in the total war.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html
So according to these journalist we could have 100 times as many deaths as we do now in Iraq and still have it be as justified as World War II. Of course this is not how you justify a war, and in the same way, Romney is not more conservative than his church. The comparison between deaths at Pearl Harbor and the resulting military deaths do not compare to the number of deaths on September 11th and the total military deaths in Iraq, unless you are a moron, or a journalist. The issues are more complicated than Journalist let on.
In the same way, you can’t compare how conservative Romney is to how conservative his church is, when his church doesn’t take political stances. These things just don’t compare, unless you are very, very, stupid.
“It was in the 1970s that the LDS church as an institution moved definitively into the political arena. As with white evangelicals, the galvanizing issues were the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe v. Wade, both of which the church saw as a threat to the nuclear family. Today, similar concerns animate the church’s vocal opposition to same-sex marriage.”
“The church remains pro-life. But the official Mormon position on abortion differs in one key respect from that of the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations: to the LDS church, abortion is not murder. The reason for this is that (again, unlike many Christian denominations) Mormon theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul — when, in effect, earthly life begins.”
Oh my goodness. I’m not going to cuss. I’m not going to cuss. He just finished saying, “Mormon theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul” but then he says, “to the LDS church, abortion is not murder.” So what is the Mormon position on abortion? That Abortion is not murder, according to the Boston Globe. But the Mormon church does not assert that abortion is not murder. We don’t’ assert anything. There is a BIG difference between these two positions, and there is not a big difference between Mormons and Evangelicals. He said, “Mormon theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul”. Well we could say the same thing about evangelical theology. I say, “Evangelical theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul.” That is because there is no one-clear definitive spokesperson who enterprises evangelical doctrine on the subject, just like Mormons. Many Mormons and Evangelicals think abortion is murder. Neither of our churches have an official policy. There are many different evangelical churches, and beliefs just like there are many different beliefs within the Mormon church, about how to interpret the scriptures in a political way. But it doesn’t really matter, because the bible teaches that we should not murder, or “do anything like unto it”.
He continues;
“Since they don’t define when the soul enters the body, they can’t call abortion murder, they simply say it’s ‘like unto it,’” says Richard Sherlock, a professor of philosophy and expert on Mormon ethics at Utah State University. As a result, the LDS church takes a more flexible approach to abortion than many other churches, opposing what it calls “elective abortion for personal or social convenience,” but allowing abortions in the case of rape, incest, fatal fetal deformities, or when the health of the mother is at risk. Just as significantly, it does not throw its weight behind legislative efforts to limit or outlaw abortion. In short, neither the Mitt Romney who ran for Senate in 1994 vowing to keep abortion safe and legal, nor the more recent “firmly pro-life” Romney, would be in the wrong according to the teachings of his church.”
So what do we learn? Not all Mormons think the same way. OMG (Oh my goodness)! What else do we learn? Not all Evangelicals think the same thing! OMG!
“On abortion, such theological distinctions may not make much difference to many Mormons, the overwhelming majority of whom identify themselves as pro-life. But on the question of stem-cell research, which has become a major issue for the conservative Republican base, the official ambiguity on when life begins has had far more tangible political effects.”
“The LDS church has no official position on stem-cell research, but according to Dan Jones, a leading Utah pollster, more than 60 percent of the Mormons in the state, who tend to be among the country’s most conservative, support it. Orrin Hatch is one of Congress’s leading proponents of federal stem-cell funding, and his four Mormon colleagues in the Senate (Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, and Senators Michael Crapo, Gordon Smith, and Robert Bennett, all Republicans) have taken similar positions.”
That is why I would never vote for Orin Hatch.
If you go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Stem_cell_research
You see that Romney vetoed a Massachusetts bill to fund stem-cell research because the legislation allowed the cloning of human embryos. “I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning,” said Romney, calling the practice “a matter of profound moral and ethical consequence”. Romney also opposed the legislation because of its assertion that life does not begin until an embryo is implanted in a uterus. “It is very conceivable that scientific advances will allow an embryo to be grown for a substantial period of time outside the uterus,” Romney said in an interview with the Boston Globe. “To say that it is not life at one month or two months or four months or full term, just because it had never been in a uterus, would be absurd.” The state legislature overrode Romney’s veto, with many legislators feeling that stem-cell research will be important in the future to the state’s biotech industry.
Way to go! You wouldn’t want the state to loose a penney!
I like Romney. How dare we use Government money, taken from individuals to do what they consider to be murder? If embryonic stem sells are so great, let the market fund them. I mean, we already do. We are republicans aren’t we? We aren’t socialist? We aren’t democrats. Why does the government need to fund the embryonic stem sell industry making children into parts? Should the government get into the car-making industry too, while we are at it? Come on Orin. The liberals are never going to like you. Why would the government fund embryonic stem cells? Mitt and George Bush are right, and the rest of the Mormon politicians are stupid.
“In public appearances, Romney has credited his thinking about the moral consequences of stem-cell research with having led him toward a more conservative position on other reproductive issues, like abortion and emergency contraception. And while this shift may have made him a more viable national Republican candidate, on the stem-cell issue at least, it has placed him outside the mainstream of his own faith.”
(click below for the next page)
December 31st, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Damn (and that was the only word that I could come up with here that was appropriate), I think that was the longest post ever made here. You did an absolutely wonderful job expressing yourself and you did a great job telling it like it is. Thank You so much for all your hard work in putting that together.
Ann Marie
December 31st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
I hope people know that it was just my opinion. It is just my opnion, and no one else’s on the blog… I have never spoken to Romney or anyone who works for him…
December 31st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Let a Libertarian lay down some Founding Father wisdom;
“If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be…if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
December 31st, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Thomas Jefferson would not go for the pseudo-scientific ID crap that Romney defends. He was way too science oriented to do that.
December 31st, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Mike your posts are too long! Use the KISS method (Keep It Short and Sweet)! My goodness! I was getting into it for the first paragraph then I began to scroll down and got discouraged. All I have time for is a quick read! I guess I am just gripping a bit but you get my point?
December 31st, 2006 at 7:51 pm
All your points were well taken. I too didn’t have time to read it all, but the parts I did read were well thought out. What you need to do Mike is write a book. Seriously, get a publisher behind you, compile all your posts and research, and write a book. Not bad for an engineer.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
On the Mormon issue, Mike don’t get so worked up about the left wing slant on it. The left is opposed to any organized religion and their opposition to Romney on the basis of his religion will backfire, since this is a country of faith. Actually, Romney’s Mormon is a net plus for him, if he is able to reassure evangelicals, like myself, that there is no ulterior agenda to promote or legitimize Mormonism from the bully pulpit of the presidency. Also he would do well not to suggest that Mormonism is just as palatable as Christianity. I think it is important for Romney to say that as much as there are similarities and shared values between the two faiths, the fact remains Mormons are distinct from Christians. Otherwise why be a Mormon? If he does this then the focus will be less on doctrines to prove the efficacy of Mormonism with respect to Christianity and more on the shared values and conservatism between Mormons and Christians in general…A big plus is that Utah with its large Mormon population is the reddest of Red States, which is not a coincidence. It’s a testament to the conservative, patriotic values Mormons have and which Romney must prove he has to gain conservative primary voters’ votes.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Romney didn’t defend ID, I did. I’m not sure what Romney thinks about ID… unless you have any quotes that I don’t know of…
December 31st, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Thanks for the Thomas Jefferson quote on the newspapers… I added it to this site:’
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/News
December 31st, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Steve, I hope you are right when you say that “Actually, Romney’s Mormon is a net plus for him, if he is able to reassure evangelicals, like myself, that there is no ulterior agenda to promote or legitimize Mormonism from the bully pulpit of the presidency.”
I don’t know if you guys have read Ender’s game but it seems like the Boston Globe is trying to create friction between our two communities by picking winners and loosers, and over simplifying things…
Feel free to tell me if I got anything wrong in the article, or if you think I went out there into la-la-land or anything… I’m just kind of making this up as I go, and I don’t know if I’m doing a good job of representing Romney or not…
December 31st, 2006 at 9:12 pm
I was watching Meet The Press this morning and I found out that a new New York Times poll finds Sen. McCain the front runner, Gov. Romney at 2nd and Rudy at 3rd. He’s really gaining in the polls.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:53 am
myclob-that is some WOW research there, YOUR MY HERO! great work!!!
January 1st, 2007 at 9:29 am
I am a Mormon-Libertarain and some of my mormon-libertarian friends have been waiting on this to evolve for quite sometime. Mormon voters are different than the evangical voting block.
Also when you get down to the meat of things the religious right wants mormons to vote with them but at the same time they won’t vote FOR us. We mormons are the redheaded stepchild of the Dobson family. Generally speaking people respect us but only to a point.
I hope Romney can overcome this silly bias of the evangelicals because he is the smartest man running for president.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
TV elects the candidate. Who do you think is going to look better in front of that camera? McCain, Guliani or Mitt? Mike’s review was right on but it gave me analysis paralysis. I truly do feel the nomination is his to lose. His handlers need to follow the example of Mitt’s church. Take the low key approach. Stay on message and don’t react when those former politically correct pundits begin to rail on his religion. They would not dare take on his sexual orientation, his ethnicity, his gender ( if he were Nancy Pelosi )but it is OK to attack his religion. That alone is going to undo the liberal press who are trying to bring Mitt Romney down. Every negative avenue they adapt decries their hypocrisy.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Thanks Lee, I’m working on a Major re-write of the above article…It was a rough draft… I hate editing what I right… I just like spewing it forth, but I know I am kind of all over the place… my next version will be much better, and I hope will not give anyone any paralysis.
January 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I think you will find that the reason the LDS Church is silent on 99% of political issues is because most issues are outside their stated mission of bringing people to Christ. Simply, most issues are not directly relivant to the Church’s message. This is a religious organization, not political. People who think otherwise just don’t get it. Sure, the Church will make an occasional position statement, but you notice it is nearly always in response to a direct and forceful attack on families or religious freedom. And those position statements are limited (at least in my experience) to the institutionalization of policy that would be harmful to families or religious freedom. The Church encourages its members to be involved as citizens (with no direction as to party affiliation), but will refrain from getting involved as an organization. It’s a church, not a PAC.
January 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Right on Jay. Any Libertarian who cares anything about capitalism, who has any kind of brain about how to make an impact in our favor through voting would know they should cash this year’s votes behind Romney for President, rather than the Libertarian canidate.
Libertarians are only able to get Libertarians in office at local levels. Most of the time, we’ll vote for the Libertarian [President] out of principle. That when there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between R&D canidates. Now there is a HUGE difference between Romney and the other prospects. I feel Romney would be the only one who’d try to make serious changes, ones that improve the economy.
I can see it now.
“Romney stops the White House from buying $1000 toilet seats and $25 hammers! The Turn-Around Specialist balanced the budget!”
“Romney proposes a plan that will end Social Security Taxes! Government will still pay people currently on social security. But the new working class will have a mandate of investing a percent of their earnings in to private retirement funds. As 16 year old who spend the same amount of money that went to Social Security if put in a retirement fund, they can retire at 40 years old with $7 million.”
January 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Romney is willing to cross party lines to vote for someone who he thinks will balance the budget…
Tsongas was viewed as social liberal and economic conservative. He was especially known for his pro-business economic policies that have come to be embraced by many in the modern Democratic Party. In particular, he focused on the United States budget deficit and its harmful effects, a cause he continued to champion after his primary campaign ended by co-founding The Concord Coalition
So welcome to the Romney team! Democrats, Libertarians, and anyone else who cares abuot the budget, and deficit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tsongas
January 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Quoting Al Crowley is pretty much like quoting Lucifer. Do you think Pres. Hinkley would quote him to prove a point?
January 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I have no idea who he is I just like the quote… Who is he?
January 1st, 2007 at 9:26 pm
The deficit is a red herring used by both party. The Dems like to talk about deficits, so that they can eventually raise taxes to expand government. True conservatives like to talk about the deficit as a means to cut spending in the hope of reducing the size of government. However the federal government from time to time must run deficit to smooth out the business cycles, which Reagan began to do in the 80s (with his big deficits) and since we haven’t had a recession lasting more than a year. And actually in the last 25 years have had only two official (1991 and 2001)recessions. Come to think about it the two times we had surpluses, we had recessions. In 1991 we had a trade surplus and in 2001 we had a budget surplus. So all this talk about how good surpluses are have not been borne out in reality, since in each case (recently) neither surpluses prevented recessions. The real killer in the economy are taxes and onerous regulations and litigations on individuals and businesses. This is where the government kills jobs and makes it harder for businesses and individuals to complete. Not to mention the near government monopolies on education and health care. In these areas we need a maverick (no pun intended) who can cleverly change the political dynamics which created these monstrosities to begin with (serving special interest), into dynamics that can motor the economy for the good of all rather than the connected. With this said, I believe Guiliani, McCain, and Romney have strong qualities and experiences that can begin to turn things around. The question for primary voters will be who is most likely to deliver. By the way I agree that the Republican party must return to the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, who was essentially a libertarian. I think Reagan was a Goldwater republican and speaking as a evangelical, I don’t like the infusion of social conservatism in politics. I think it’s been overplayed by Rove and it’s time for the Rove era to past in favor of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism which was more focus on the excesses of government rather than using government to promote a social agenda.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I didn’t think evangelicals liked berry goldwater.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 am
I do no think they did either, in the atlantic monthly article “holy cow” its said that romneys own father I believe walked out when he heard Barry speak.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:06 am
What we will never know is weather it was because Romney Sr was apposed to what he said, or if it was because he knew he would loose in a landslide, and he couldn’t figure out why the republicans would commit suicide like that…
I got the quote from Google’s quote of the day… I had now idea of what a freak it came from… should I keep using it? It is a great anti-newspaper quote, and they love freaks…
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Evangelicals have more to worry from Mitt Romney not being in harmony with the the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His church does have a political position on abortion: only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The church also has a political position on gay marriage which is that there should be a Federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
There’s no worry here. Mitt Romney’s position on abortion is in line with the Church’s, as is his position on gay marriage.
Romney has changed his position on abortion. It’s not uncommon for people, including politicians, to change their minds on the issues. The question is whether they will act with integrity. Romney has said he was wrong about his previous position on abortion and he has since been consistent in his opposition to it.
Today the Massachusetts Legislature voted on the proposal for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The proposal got enough votes to be put on the ballot in 2008. This came about because Romney, together with a number of other private citizens, petitioned the state supreme court and the court ruled in their favor. What else do you want from him?
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Mormons, Evangelicals, and Catholics are ALL Christians. We should all begin to act like Christians, and stop pointing fingers. If we learned to work together with those who share our beliefs on a given issue, rather than nitpick about who believes in it more–we would accomplish a great deal more than we do now.