At Bloomberg, Jeffrey Goldberg wonders whether Mitt Romney’s religion would be treated differently in the media if he were Jewish. While Goldberg doesn’t completely answer the question, he does try to parse out why the Romney campaign has been so quiet on Mormonism:
So what does the Romney camp find so frightening? In talking to my Mormon friends (some of my best friends are Mormons), the answer is clear. The practices and origin stories of most religions, when viewed by outsiders, all seem fairly strange. But Mormonism seems just a bit stranger than the rest. The great fear is not that Americans will see a Mormon politician as too sinister to lead the country (the way that some Baptist leaders once saw the Catholic John F. Kennedy) but that Americans will see a Mormon as too bizarre to be president.
They point to the issue of “sacred underwear,” the derisive term for undergarments worn by some Mormons to remind themselves of their religious responsibilities. Many find the concept odd, but should they? Is Mormonism really that much stranger than other religions?
Goldberg is probably right that anti-Mormonism is more likely to take the form of ridicule than conspiracy-laced paranoia, but strains of both have still been given credence in the mainstream media. Last November, for example, the New York Times published a nasty attack on Mormonism by Harold Bloom, who argued that a Romney presidency would mean “a further strengthening of theocracy.” Later, a Salon article hinted that Romney was part of a plot for Mormon theocratic takeover.
The mockery, by the way, tends to be just as disturbing as the theocratic takeover theories. In April, Lawrence O’Donnell spewed out the following on his show:
Now, part of Romney’s religion problem is that he’s a part of a new religion. Established religions like Judaism, which is about 4,000 years old, and Christianity, which is about 2,000 years old, don’t easily warm up to new religions like Romney’s, which is only 182 years old. Mormonism was created by a guy in upstate New York in 1830 when he got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it. Forty-eight wives later, Joseph Smith’s lifestyle was completely sanctified in the religion he invented to go with it. Which Mitt Romney says he believes.
Imagine if an MSNBC anchor launched into a nationally televised rant denying the religious legitimacy of Judaism while criticizing a Jewish politician. Would he still be on the air? Would MSNBC at least have issued an apology?
Unlike anti-Semitism, anti-Mormonism is still considered an acceptable — some would say fashionable — prejudice in many circles. Recent polls show that it is actually increasing among those supposed pillars of enlightened tolerance, self-proclaimed liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell.
It would be fantastic if Romney would talk freely about his religion with the media, but his reluctance is understandable, considering his political history. As Seth wrote recently, anti-Mormonism stung Romney in his Senate race against Ted Kennedy. In a 1994 C-SPAN interview, current Romney strategist Stu Stevens — who was a GOP consultant at the time — said that “the Kennedy campaign very insidiously played the Mormon card in Massachusetts, by simply saying over and over again they weren’t going to talk about the fact that Romney was a Mormon.”
If Romney broaches the issue, it gives others — liberal pundits, columnists, Democratic strategists — an opening to talk about the religion in a pernicious way. And because many people aren’t aware of the problem of anti-Mormonism, because it’s tolerated by liberals and academics, and because there is no comparable Mormon version of the Anti-Defamation League, there won’t be a serious outcry.
So yes, Romney should have confidence in his religion. But it also isn’t Romney’s responsibility to challenge and fend off the prejudice, mockery and paranoid theories that his religion is faced with daily.
whether his campaign would be treated differently in the media matters less than whether the Evangelical Christian wing of the Republican Party would be even more unhappy with having him heading their ticket.
"Unlike anti-Semitism, anti-Mormonism is still considered an acceptable — some would say fashionable — prejudice in many circles. " The truth of that assertion depends greatly on how restrictivey you define "antisemitism,"* and what circles you're speaking about. There is a great deal of "anti-Zionism" which functionally amounts to "antisemitism" even if there is no explicit expression of prejudice against Jews qua Jews. You can ask Jonathan Tobin, who indicted Alice Walker (quite correctly) on the charge of "antisemitism" though she was just expressing herself through the fashionable "anti-Zionism" of her Leftie circle and saying nothing directly about Jews. And "antisemitism" of both the "racial" and "anti-Zionist" kind is commonplace and intense in the Muslim world. (see continuation of this "too long" comment) n n
How much experience do Mormons have in modern times of physical, sometimes murderous, violence directed against their persons; bombing of their houses of worship and gathering places; anti-Mormon vandalism; and discrimination targeting them except in electoral contests? nWe can make clear our disapproval of anti-Mormonism along with other forms of bigotry without making it out to be a more serious than antisemitism. n n*[That's the way the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism spells "antisemitism," and I believe it is the correct one given the origins of the word.]
In my opinion, Gov Romney's campaign staff could simply invite interested public to go to the Wikipedia website for a secular description of Mormonism and its history. After comparing the LDS web sites, Christian sites as well as ex-mormon information, the Wikipedia presentation appeared even handed, provided sources, and pro and con perspectives. I learned the following: n nMormon teaching although having its roots in 19th century Protestantism is clearly a new religion not recognizable by most Christians. Mormon/Christian dialalog is often limited or confused by common terms but very different meanings. Like other religions, the credibility of Mormonism rests primarily with its founder and the authenticity of its sacred testaments. At this time, Mormon apologetics appears very speculative providing little validation compared to traditional Christian scholarship which admittedly has been defending its beliefs for a much longer time. The LDS admonishment to pray for a feeling about the truthfulness of their teaching is shared with other religions, but requires an extra measure of assurance given the lack of archeological, geographic, linguistic and recent genetic corroboration of claims of the Book of Mormon. Analysis of the available historic information about Joseph Smith vary dramatically depending on who is telling the story. He was either a very cunning con artist who knowingly duped family, friends and thousands of very sincere people, a seriously deranged relgious zealot who confused an incredible imagination with reality or a simple, young man who God chose to use in remarkable way.
10 Facts You Should Know About Mormon History and Belief before Shooting Your Mouth Off n1. 1830 – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is formally organized with six members. Today it has more than 14 million members. n2. 1832 – A runaway slave named Elija Able is baptized and ordained to the priesthood. He serves multiple missions to Canada where he will be safe from the Fugitive Slave Laws. He is probably the first black Mormon. n3. 1833 – Joseph Smith receives a revelation that will become section 101 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Verse 79 says "Therefore it is not right that one man should be in bondage to another." n4. 1838 – Mormons are expelled from Missouri under threat of extermination (Executive Order 44). A petition of complaints against them makes no mention of polygamy but complains that Mormons invited "free negroes and mulattoes" to join them in Missouri. n5. 1844 – Joseph Smith runs for president with a plan to free all slaves by 1850. He is murdered the same year. n6. 1852 – Utah enacts the most liberal divorce laws in the United States and possibly the world. Any woman who insists on a divorce gets one. Meanwhile, Brigham Young imposes a lineage restriction on the Aaronic and Melchezidec priesthoods; withholding them from presumed descendants of Ham. n7. 1869 – The Utah territorial legislature which is dominated by Mormons votes to give women the vote. At the time, only Wyoming had female suffrage. n8. 1887 – The federal government takes the vote away from Utah women (Edmunds-Tucker Act) n9. 1890 – Polygamy is discontinued by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Eternal marriage remains a central belief in Mormon life. n10. 1978 – Governor Bond of Missouri officially rescinds Executive Order 44 (which had not been enforced for over a century) and formally apologizes for it. The same year Spencer W Kimball and the quorum of the twelve decide to end all lineage requirements for holding the Aaronic and Melkezidec priesthoods. n
So what do all of these facts convey ? I am around Mormons daily, and have enough social interaction with them to form a non-biased opinion. I know what they are like to work and socialize with. Decent people. I just don't want them governing my country. Their church is their first allegiance. My priorities are not skewed that way. That is why, Mitt Romney, in the political arena, ndoes not come off as being authentic. No amount of proselytizing will change that intuitive observation on my part.
Odd, Bill. The first Mormon I met was in law school in 1975. Since then, I've had LDS bosses, law partners (same guy as my former boss), and co-workers, in two different states. Neither state, as far as I know, has a large LDS poppulation. Admittedly my sample group is iminscule, but I never saw or heard anything from any of them that would lead me to think they have any desire to impose a Mormon government on this country, or that as an elected official they would allow allegiance to their church (whatever you mean by that) to trump their legal duty as a government official.
Then read these references of how Romney frequently flew to Salt Lake City to confer with Mormon leaders over political decisions – the exact thing America was worred about with Kennedy and the Pope – however, Kennedy didn't frequently fly to see the Pope so often that the Utah prophet considered all of Mitt's trips to be "tiresome." n nJust google them, they are all available online: n nBarrett, Wayne, "Biographer Recounts Romney's Many Trips To Mormon Church To Discuss Social Issues," The Daily Beast, May 11, 2012. n nErickson, Tricia, "A Mormon America, Brought To You By Mitt Romney," Christian News Today. n nGibson, David, "Why Mitt Romney Can't Be The Mormon JFK," Huffington Post, Jan 25, 2012. n nSaletan, William, "The Conversion: How, when, and why Mitt Romney changed his mind on abortion," SLATE, Feb 22, 2012. n n
I feel that the Mormon religion is kindof odd, but kudos to them about celebrating sex within the Marriage including things like mirrors on the ceiling. But they really do not discriminate, the church is out there effectively helping the world (yes they do want you to hear their sales pitch) but even if you decline they will fix up the health clinic. Anyone else been to the Poly Cultural Center in Oahu, it is a work study program for 2,500 islander students (Tahiti etc) to learn and also to teach the public the pacific culture – not the Morman culture. n nMormans make their members participate, not just send a check. I do think some independant expenditures need to be made to have better Morman PR. What I find surprising is the hostility of many of the Christians to it, maybe because it is competition. But the LDS church really wants their members to be good citizens, far better for society as whole than many other beliefs.
When Mitt's father George was campaigning for the Republican nomination in 1968, I do not recall any mention at all of the fact that he was Mormon. This is despite the fact that George was from a Mormon family and was himself very active in the church. The major controversy was whether he was technically eligible to run since he was born in Mexico to American parents. This was never fully resolved since his campaign faltered early and he was not nominated, although I understand that it is generally assumed that he was eligible. n nIn any case, it is interesting that nearly half a century ago, in a society presumably less tolerant than it is today, George Romney's Mormonism was essentially a non-issue. Perhaps it was because it was because it was considered impolite to discuss religion, although there was plenty of discussion about John F. Kennedy's Roman Catholicism eight years earlier. Or, perhaps, it would have become more of an issue if he had been closer or had received the nomination and was a serious possibility to become president. n nWhatever the case, it is still surprising that there appears to be far more interest in Mitt's religion than there ever was in George's.
I doubt if Lawrence O’Donnell was any more favorably disposed towards Bush's religiosity, although he may or may not have felt more constraints about expressing his disdain. And if he thought Obama were in Jeremiah Wright's church for any reason other than politics I don't think he would be thrilled, though he would never say anything about it in public. Calling this "anti-Mormonism" is misleading.