Conservative Anti-Mormon Bias is Self-Defeating

If the adage is true that "statistics don't lie," then there is deeper bias in America against Mormons than there is against African-Americans or Jews. According to a Newsweek poll cited by Robert Novak in his latest Washington Post Column, "A Mormon in the White House?":

28 percent of Americans would not vote for any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- demonstrating much greater hostility than to a Jewish or African-American candidate. Mormonism is the only minority category toward which bias in America has deepened.

What do these poll results really mean? Is it the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that causes such prejudice? Is it the behavior of individual members of the LDS Church that convinces 28 percent of Americans that a member of that church should never be president? Considering that the poll question apparently did not single out Mitt Romney for scrutiny, the root cause of the bias runs deeper than personal or political dislike of Romney himself. 28 percent would not vote for "any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

You probably have a friend or neighbor who is a member of the LDS Church. From what you know of him or his family, would you withhold your vote from him if he were politically viable and urged to run for the presidency? If the answer is no, and you are a political conservative, what is the criteria on which you based your decision?

Was it the specter of polygamy, a topic favored by the media for its potential for stories of prurient interest? After all, in their recent titillating coverage of the capture of polygamist fugitive Warren Jeffs or conviction of a polygamist for "marrying" and raping his teenage cousin, very few news organizations bothered to explain to viewers or readers that neither of those men were in any way affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as Mormon or LDS. The church officially outlawed the practice of polygamy in 1890, and had stopped preaching or encouraging the practice of it long before that date in accordance with the federal law prohibiting polygamy in U.S. Territories. The church excommunicates anyone who defies the national law and church doctrine by engaging in the practice of it.

The fugitive and convicted polygamists belong to what is known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which broke off of the original faith and established itself in sparse, rural areas of Southern Utah and parts of Arizona. These Fundamentalists are the only polygamists in Utah for nearly 120 years, but the news media never quite mention that fact in their stories. Even though there are no Mormon polygamists in Utah, the state is synonymous in the minds of many voters with polygamy.

Lumping together members of the LDS Church with the separate Fundamentalists is the equivalent of arguing that all scientists must be Scientologists simply because they share the same root word, science.

Perhaps your hesitation stemmed from skepticism about stories of gold plates containing writings of ancient prophets, or visions of angels and heavenly beings. It is interesting that anyone who believes in the bible would find such claims outrageous. I have never seen or touched any of the scrolls that biblical prophets and apostles wrote upon, but that does not invalidate for me the bible as a holy book of scripture. There are ample Biblical accounts of visions and appearances of heavenly beings, yet I do not believe them contrived or fictional.

Deepening voter bias against Mormons may actually represent something flattering about the LDS Church and its members. While family values and parental responsibility in American society steadily decline, the LDS Church emphasizes core conservative values clearly and concisely. While various religions adopt acceptance of open homosexuality and civil unions or gay marriages, the LDS Church encouraged its members to support amending the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. While society becomes permissive of and celebrates promiscuity before and throughout marriage, the LDS Church teaches its youth to maintain their virtue and cherish chastity. Saving oneself for marriage is not a quaint, unrealistic, or old-fashioned notion to Mormons. While abortion has become an accepted method of birth control in society, the LDS Church operates LDS Family Services and advocates adoption and the sanctity of life.

Did you recognize genuine conservative ideology in these teachings? How about dedicating one evening each week exclusively for family activities? Encouraging members to donate charitable funds to temporarily care for the financial needs of struggling fellow members to keep them off of government welfare rolls? If conservatism is synonymous with self-reliance rather than government handouts, then Mormonism is synonymous with conservatism when it comes to finances and rugged individualism.

Conservatives like big ideas. Newt Gingrich was wildly successful leading the Republican revolution in 1994 because of the Contract with America, a document that clearly spelled out what conservatism stands for and what the Republican Congress would achieve if elected. Churches also at times set forth their teachings in clear public documents. In 1995, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." In this document, the LDS Church clearly stated its positions on the divine nature of mankind, gay marriage, gender, abortion, chastity, preservation of the nuclear family, and the importance encouraging world governments to preserve the family as the central unit of society. If you are conservative, consider whether you would vote for a candidate with the following beliefs:

...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

...We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

...We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

...Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

If bias in America is deepening against members of a church that unashamedly proclaims these decidedly conservative values, then we should be asking ourselves why. If conservatives would not vote for any LDS candidate for the presidency, then perhaps they are conservative in name only. Society is morally adrift and floating further out to sea at a faster pace than ever before. As the gulf between itself and the above teachings of the LDS Church grows ever wider, its animosity toward Mormons increases in equal proportions because society does not like to be told it is morally corrupt regardless of the messenger.

Thus, deepening bias against the LDS Church, in a sadly ironic way, may actually be a moral badge of honor for maligned Mormons. After all, African-Americans and Jews used to be the groups voters indicated they would not vote for, and yet both made marvelous contributions to and became integral parts of both political parties once bigotry took a back seat to shared ideology.


Technorati Tags:
LDS, Mormon, Mitt Romney, Religious Bias, Prejudice, Newsweek Polls, Robert Novak, Conservatism, Family Values

Mistake for Romney to Follow JFK Lead

Many observers of the 2008 presidential campaign are convinced that Republican candidate Mitt Romney should deliver a speech similar to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 explanation of how his religion would influence his political actions. The fact that JFK’s speech on his Catholicism ultimately succeeded in blunting criticisms from Protestant activists, political analysts suggest, is reason enough for Romney to adopt a similar strategy to assuage evangelical concerns over Romney’s faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormon). The temptation for Romney to provide potential voters with a JFK-style declaration on his faith is very strong, and Romney’s comments on the subject indicate he is likely to follow JFK’s example. That would be a mistake.

Romney should be wary of evangelicals or others who insist that a speech clarifying the role of faith in his life would benefit his campaign. When weighing advice given, one must consider two simple questions: what is the motive of the adviser, and who benefits from following the advice? For Romney, the answers to these questions as they relate to the advice that he should give a JFK-style religious speech suggest that Romney stands to gain little or nothing, while those giving the advice will receive their intended reward: the derailment of Romney’s candidacy.

First, Romney should examine the motives of those advising him to give a speech on his faith. Who are they? Some, of course, are fellow members of Romney’s faith who naively believe that by candidly discussing his faith and its influence on his politics he will silence criticism of the LDS church. Some are misguided but not malicious political pundits who take the lone example of JFK and extrapolate from it predictions of similar campaign success for Romney. Most are evangelicals and others who are far more interested in keeping Romney’s religion front and center in voters’ minds than they are in actually reconciling their doctrinal differences with his faith. This third group poses the greatest risk to Romney’s campaign because it capitalizes on the religious ignorance, indifference, or blatant bigotry of potential voters. The third group is well aware that as long as Romney’s religion is talked about more than his political views or policy positions, he will never be taken seriously enough to win the GOP nomination regardless of his early poll strength and impressive fundraising prowess.

Who benefits if Romney decides to deliver a speech addressing concerns over his faith? The prime beneficiary of such an act would be the media, through an endless stream of stories on every conceivable aspect of the LDS church and its history. One need only observe the media frenzy that occurs whenever an obscure polygamist from Arizona or rural Utah is discovered to get a sense of what would be in store for Romney. Every religion has some doctrine or controversy in its history, but the media rarely point out that very few Mormons ever practiced polygamy and the church ordered those who did to terminate the practice in the 1890s.

Romney should expect unfair characterizations, misleading headlines, and biased articles by the thousands in response to whatever he chooses to state about his faith. It is important for Romney to remember that anyone who advises him to stand in front of television cameras and reporters and talk about his membership in a church that is frequently stigmatized by the media likely does not have the candidate’s best interest in mind. It is revealing that the same choruses shouting for Romney to defend his religion are unwilling to demand that other candidates state their level of religious activity or explain their failures to live the tenets of their own faiths.

By following JFK’s example, Romney also will forever lose the constitutional high ground he now enjoys when he and his supporters point to Article VI and remind Americans that no religious test should be applied to candidates for office. Currently the talk of Romney’s faith emanates mainly from religious critics or media figures seeking to stir controversy where none should exist. If Romney addresses his faith in the manner he is considering, he would give the issue ample fuel to compel him to spend the remainder of a short-lived campaign answering endless questions about religion rather than why he would be a good choice for president. That aspect of his life is what makes him uniquely different from the other candidates, but what he should seek instead is to stand out from them through knowledge of the issues and charismatic leadership. Being different from the other candidates is a positive, but Romney must be mindful of what differences he chooses to emphasize.

This does not mean that Romney should evade all questions of religion or be secretive. On the contrary, Romney should allow the media to discover firsthand, as Reverend Al Sharpton did recently, that the LDS church routinely makes spokespersons or leaders available to address public and media inquiries about the doctrines and history of the church. Rather than stand as an unofficial representative of his church, Romney should refer his critics and the media to those who are officially qualified to answer questions such as what influence church leaders would have over an LDS president or to address controversial portions of LDS history. If Mike Wallace’s “60 Minutes” interview of LDS church President Gordon B. Hinckley several years ago or President Hinckley’s interviews with Larry King and the National Press Club in Washington DC were any indication, Romney’s church appears quite capable of engaging the media. The LDS church reportedly does not endorse any candidates and declares political neutrality. That fact is evidenced by the antics of Harry Reid on the left and polar opposite views and votes by Romney, Orrin Hatch, and others on the right.

Critics of Romney’s faith and his GOP rivals for the nomination are counting on religion to be the anchor that will hold Romney’s campaign securely in port rather than steaming confidently toward the presidency. By casting that anchor at the feet of his church’s highest leaders for handling, Romney’s campaign ship could sail far more smoothly and with fewer detours or course corrections than if he tackles the issue of faith on his own. The media and evangelical sharks are circling Romney’s boat, eager for a taste of religious debate. Romney would be well advised not to swim in those waters. Anyone in his camp who suggests otherwise should be made to walk the plank.


Technorati Tags:
Mitt Romney, JFK, Article VI, LDS, Mormon, Presidential Candidates, Campaign Strategy, Evangelicals, Gordon B. Hinckley, Religion in Politics

The Romney Campaign's Baffling Mistake

For a man who has gone to great lengths to downplay the role of personal religious practice in the selection of an American president, 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney may have gotten what he deserved in his recent verbal exchange with Al Sharpton. By that I do not mean that Sharpton was right, or that his comments about Romney’s faith were not bigoted (they were). On the contrary, Sharpton insulted Romney and Romney’s faith in the same manner Sharpton insults nearly all faiths and ethnicities that differ from his narrow world view. Romney deserved the follow-up criticisms of his faith and subsequent media scrutiny because Romney demonstrated poor judgment by acknowledging and commenting on anything spoken by Al Sharpton in the first place. If the decision was made by a campaign advisor, Romney should start seeking new talent in a hurry. Romney and his team should have recognized Sharpton for the race and religious baiter that he is and not given it a second thought.

If Romney’s goal was to run for president on his substantial and impressive record in politics, business, and family life without having to pass a religious “litmus test,” he could not have chosen a worse course of action than publicly complaining about Sharpton's statements. This was a religious debate in New York City between a raving racist self-proclaimed “reverend” (Sharpton), and an avowed Atheist (Christopher Hitchens). If Romney intends to decry every disparaging remark made about his religion by anyone of prominence, he will ultimately spend far more time doing so in his campaign than describing his views and convincing voters he would make a good president.

What did Romney hope to accomplish by entangling himself in a religious tug of war with Sharpton? Why, if he did not want his religion to be a determining factor for voters, did he engage in religious discussions he knew would draw national attention? Some may argue that Romney was shrewd to allow himself to draw fire from a known bigot and an Atheist, as doing so would arouse the sympathy of religious conservatives (and it did, including Ralph Reed, who staunchly defended Romney on Hannity & Colmes last night). While this may seem a plausible explanation in the immediate aftermath of the incident and continuing verbal exchanges between Sharpton and Romney, it is more likely that this questionable decision will harm Romney’s campaign by making religion the defining issue, or at least the issue receiving the most media coverage.

Sharpton will not back down. He will never sincerely apologize. He will only continue to do what he has already done, which is to escalate his rhetoric against Romney’s faith by raising questions about his church’s restriction on blacks receiving the priesthood, which was discontinued in 1978. Simply by acknowledging Sharpton and commenting to the press, Romney opened himself to attacks publicized in the national media questioning whether his faith is truly Christian (which it clearly is) and whether it practiced discrimination (which it did not, if one accepts the LDS Church’s official declaration issued in 1978). Few will remember what Romney’s stances on terrorism and the economy are while the media focuses on his faith and its mysterious or misunderstood past, depending on one’s point of view.

Romney granted extensive media access to his family and addressed his religious views and the role of religion in his life in Hugh Hewitt’s book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney. As I read the book it seemed that Romney was hoping that Hewitt's work, written as it was by a popular radio host, blogger, and Evangelical, would satisfy national curiosity and answer any question as to whether a candidate’s faith should influence his perceived qualifications for the presidency. Instead of letting the book serve that purpose, aided by his low-profile responses to questions about his faith, Romney has now allowed others to frame the debate over his religion and he finds himself responding defensively. If the best defense is a good offense, then Romney made a tactical error by stepping into a defensive role in a national arena.

Romney would have been well served to do what most Americans do: ignore Sharpton’s vitriolic attention seeking. The "reverend" does not represent the beliefs and values of even a tiny fraction of African-Americans, and Romney could have further marginalized Sharpton by refusing to take his bait. Instead, Romney has now become the only GOP candidate who voters will mentally connect with Sharpton. In mudslinging, the innocent party is often splattered but needs not remain in range of further salvos or join his adversary in the mud. Romney can expect more attacks and will deserve them, not because they are fair, but because, like a matador, he could have side-stepped a perpetually charging Sharpton but chose instead to be gored.

Spy The News! Poll Results: "What Single Issue Will Prevent Your Vote for a 2008 Presidential Candidate?"

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers "Which Single Issue Will Prevent You From Voting for a 2008 Presidential Candidate?"

Here are the results of our poll:

Mitt Romney's Faith 7%

Rudy Giuliani's social liberal views 14%

Newt Gingrich's ethics and resignation 14%

John McCain's Senate Record 64%


The results of this poll demonstrated a few things about Spy The News! readers. First, in many prominent polls Mitt Romney's faith appears to be a significant issue, with polls showing that 25% to 35% of Americans would not vote for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormon). Spy The News! readers appear to be more tolerant of religious differences than the national average, with only 7% of you indicating Romney's faith would be the deciding factor for your vote in 2008.

Second, many readers appear to have negative impressions about Senator McCain's voting record over the years, and may overlook some of the blemishes of other candidates as a result. Spy The News! is interested in your feedback about what votes or what issues caused you to form a negative opinion of McCain's Senate record.

Visit Spy the News! to participate in this week's poll: "What Political Issue is Most Important to You?"

2 Utah Tragedies Result in 10 Deaths: Remarkable Forgiveness Displayed by Survivor of One Incident

News stories today have focused on the tragic shooting spree at Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah, that claimed the lives of 6 people, including the shooter. The idea of being shot randomly by a shotgun-toting teenager while dining or shopping for that special Valentine’s Day gift never really crosses the mind of the average person, but that is precisely what happened to mall patrons Monday night. The fact that this teenager, armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and additional ammunition, succeeded in killing “only” 5 victims is a testament to good fortune and the swift intervention of the Salt Lake Police Department and an off-duty Ogden (UT) Police Officer. The unnamed off-duty officer, according to one report, assisted in drawing the suspect's fire away from other shoppers and returned fire with an off-duty weapon.

Descriptions of the incident include bodies lying face down where they had fallen in store entrances my readers can relate to: Pottery Barn Kids, Williams Sonoma, Hallmark Cards, and an unnamed children’s clothing store, in which the gunman was killed by responding tactical police officers and the off-duty Ogden PD officer. The Salt Lake Police and the Ogden officer should be praised for their tactical and time saving decision to skip the procedure of establishing a secure perimeter around the mall, opting instead to immediately form “Emergency Action Teams” and confront the gunman. As Salt Lake City and other communities who experience terrifying incidents like Monday’s shootings can attest, local police, though often mocked or vilified in the media and by citizens who think they will never need help, daily place their lives in jeopardy in defense of total strangers and are a most welcome sight to helpless victims.

The horrific nature of Monday’s shootings raises the inevitable question faced by families of the deceased, wounded, and psychologically terrorized: Can they ever forgive the shooter? In the aftermath of tragedy, the impulse response, fueled by adrenaline and anger, is usually to bitterly answer “no.” People cope with loss in a variety of ways, but to anyone who has been wronged, injured, or even suffered the death of loved ones at the hands of another, the following story may help salve your wounds and heal your soul.

This article, which appeared in today’s Deseret Morning News, describes another recent tragedy in Utah and is a powerful example of forgiveness where forgiveness seems impossible, and the healing that faith can bring even in the face of indescribable grief. The following are excerpts and photos courtesy of the Deseret Morning News and Deseret News photographer August Miller. Spy The News! encourages readers to follow the links to the article and read it in its entirety:

As Christopher Williams was being extricated from his overturned car onto a backboard to be taken to the hospital, he looked over at his vehicle and the car that had just crashed into him, killing his pregnant wife and two of his children.

It was at that moment Williams said he had a decision to make. That decision, he said, was to "unconditionally forgive" the person who had just caused the accident. By forgiving, Williams said the healing process could continue without being "hampered by another step."

Monday, Williams showed the great composure some had already seen since Friday night's accident as he addressed the media for the first time.

Friday's accident on 2000 East near 2700 South claimed the lives of his 41-year-old wife, Michelle, who was about six months pregnant; 11-year-old son, Ben; and 9-year-old daughter, Anna. His 6-year-old son, Sam, was taken to Primary Children's Medical Center where he was listed in stable condition Monday.

Police believe the 17-year-old driver accused of smashing into the Williams family had been drinking.

Christopher Williams has shown remarkable strength, which he claims comes partly from his LDS faith and partly from his wife. It was through his wife that he learned the power of forgiveness, he said. "This is what she would want to do," he said of forgiving the allegedly drunken teenage driver.

After 18 1/2 years of marriage, Williams called the accident and his reaction to it an "exam" from his wife "to make sure I was listening." He called his wife a humble and forgiving person whose example he tried to emulate.

As soon as Williams decided he would unconditionally forgive the other driver, he said it was at that moment he heard Sam calling to him from the back of the wrecked car.

But he admits the events of the past four days have been a bitter cup. "I know it will all be all right one day," he said. "That bitter cup doesn't have to be drunk all at once. But we know one day it will be empty." [emphasis added]

Williams said his memory of what happened that night is still a little "foggy," and he did not want to discuss details of the accident until he had a chance to talk with Salt Lake City police.

He said Sam is in stable condition with some broken bones and is being medicated, but Williams did not go into many other details about his son's condition. He added that Sam was not aware yet that his mother and two of his siblings were dead. . . .

. . . As far as the severity of the case, Miller [Salt Lake City District Attorney] said Friday's accident "ranks very high in my book." Miller called the accident a "profound tragedy" for the teen's family and Williams' family. She said she has been touched by the father's kindness toward the defendant. However, that will not influence the way she screens charges.

"It's one thing to forgive someone," she said. "It's important we hold people accountable. The victim's role is to determine how they react to forgiving. My role is to determine how to keep the community safe. . . ."

At Highland Park Elementary School where Ben was a sixth-grader and Anna was in fourth grade . . . A table was set up in the front of the school with flowers and pictures of the two classmates. Counselors were at the school all day Monday to help both teachers and students deal with the tragedy.

To help the healing process, Chris Williams has asked members of the community to conduct their own act of kindness or forgiveness by Valentine's Day, write about it and send it to his two surviving sons.

Those letters can be sent to williamsvalentine@myavant.com. [emphasis added] The Williams' 14-year-old son, Michael, was not with the family at the time of the accident.

Donations to help the Williams family can also be made at all Zions Bank locations.