Pat Allen: The View from Right Field

Where’s the Anti-Mormon Vote?

During Mitt Romney’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, one of the big questions, in the media, at least, is whether fundamentalists and evangelicals in the Republican Party would vote for Mr. Romney.  Conventional wisdom has been that evangelical voters were going to be a big problem for former Governor Romney.  After all, the implicit argument went, you know those bigoted, right-wing Republicans.  They oppose same-sex marriage because they don’t like gays.  They voted against Obama because he was black.  The big question in 2012 was going to be: Who did the evangelicals hate more: President Obama or Mormons?

There is only one trouble with this story-line.  When it comes to not wanting a Mormon to be President, it’s not the Republicans who are the bigots.  Hidden deep in an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal about this year’s election was this sentence: “Democrats in the poll were more likely than Republicans to express concerns about a Mormon president.”*  But Peter Hart, the Democratic half of the duo which conducts the poll, explained that this wasn’t because Democrats don’t like Mormons.  Rather, some Democrats were just using this question as a proxy for not wanting Mitt Romney to be president.  Now I have heard of voters coming up with phony policy differences to explain why they oppose a candidate when it’s really bigotry.  I have never before heard of somebody using bigotry as a substitute for policy differences.

In any case, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal poll isn’t the first one to identify where the anti-Mormonism is.  A Gallup poll in June of last year showed that while 18% of Republicans and 19% of independents would not support a Mormon for president, 27% of Democrats would not support a Mormon.

In other words, when it comes to anti-Mormonism, if you want to find the bigots, look left.

--------
* Neil King Jr. and Danny Yadron, “Obama, Romney Toe to Toe,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2012; Laura Meckler, “One in Four Say Having a Mormon President Would Cause Concerns,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2012.

Church Unity: For Today’s World – Or the Next?

Christian unity has been a goal of people and church leaders for centuries.  Today there are many conversations between Catholics and Protestants and among leaders of different Protestant groups about what they share and how they can join together.

But I have often wondered whether such unity is, in and for today’s world, the right goal.  It has often seemed to me that it has been the competition between different Christian groups, and the enthusiasm people had for their denominations or groups, that encouraged so many people to go out and spread the word of God.  Obviously, I am talking about peaceful and God-centered competition, not the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries – and more recent times.  As long as we all understand we are all working for the same goal and the same God, why does there have to be just one way of getting to God and one church to lead us there?  Why can’t there be a multitude of ways to get to God - and to get people to God.

A recent report issued by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, “Beliefs about God across Time and Countries,” may actually provide some support for my view:

“Countries with low atheism and high strong belief tend to be Catholic societies, especially in the developing world, plus the United States, Israel, and Orthodox Cyprus. … There is also evidence that religious competition and/or religious conflict may stimulate higher belief.  Belief is high in Israel …, Cyprus …, and Northern Ireland ….  In the United States there is relatively little overt religious conflict, but intense religious competition across both major religions and denominations within Christianity.” 

It seems to me competition does several things that may encourage belief and attendance.  First, as I said above, competition makes people more excited about their church and makes them more excited to go out and tell people about their church.  Second, it provides alternatives.  If there is only one major church or denomination (or even just a few), if you don’t like the church you are going to, you may just drop out of religion.  In the United States, however, if you don’t like one church, there are many others you can try.  And at least some of them may be reaching out to you.

Third, competition will keep church leaders on their toes – if they don’t want to lose their members to other churches.  When your congregation has choices, you have to do a better job.

While one church may be what we will rejoice in in the future that will come, for the world we live in today, more people may be led to God if we have a variety of churches all talking about God in their own way – and respecting the right of others to do the same.

What Would Voltaire Say About Forcing Religious Institutions to Violate Their Principles

Voltaire famously said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Trying to fit this idea into the current controversy as to whether religious institutions should be forced to include, in health insurance plans they provide to their employees, coverage(s) which are contrary to their religious beliefs, I came up with this:

“I do not agree with your religious principals, but I will defend your right* to not provide a health insurance plan that violates your religious principles.”

Unfortunately, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center earlier this month, 44% of Americans who have heard about the issue, said that, even if a religious institution objects to contraception on the basis of its religious principles, it should still have to provide contraception in its health plan.  I guess we don’t have many Voltaires today.  But at least we have the First Amendment.

--------
* “To the death” probably doesn’t fit today.

2011: The 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible

As those of you who read this blog know, I often comment on anniversaries.  Many times they are about baseball, but sometimes I do other things.  This is going to be one of those other things because 1611 is the 400th anniversary of one of the best books, if not the best book, of all time: The King James Bible.

I will admit that at times the King James Bible can be a little tough to read.  It’s not always the words we use today.  But so what, it’s the Bible.  A little extra work now and then is okay.  And when it comes to the King James Version, it is worth it.

So much of the King James Bible has become everyday to us:  “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.”  “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  For that matter could you read Abraham Lincoln without knowing the King James Bible?

But best of all, at least for me, is the story of Jesus’s birth in Luke 2.  It is sad that our church does not read Luke 2 from the King James Version anymore.  Instead, we use the current edition of whatever is deemed the most up-to-date and authentic translation.  And we lose something because of it.

But at least I know I will be able to hear the King James Version of Luke 2 one place on Christmas Eve each year:  “A Charlie Brown Christmas.”  Every year Linus gets it right.  Thank you, Charles Schulz.

-----------
Update (10/09/11 3:15 pm):  A comment from a reader made me realize that I may have overstated things in this post.  While the King James Version should be celebrated, I understand why it is not used in day-to-day worship or Bible study.  What I was saying, and what I miss, is that we don’t seem to use the King James Bible at all, even on special occasions or when we read the especially familiar passages, like the story of Jesus’s birth in Luke 2 on Christmas Eve.  That is when is need to read the King James Version because reading it would help tie the church services of our youth and our parents’ youth with the church services of our children and of their children.

All Saints Day

Today, November 1, is All Saints Day.  Here is a pretty decent version of “For All the Saints,” words by William How, music by Ralph Vaughn Williams.  Hymns don’t get much better than this.

 

“Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders.”

October 31 is Reformation Day.  493 years ago today Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.

Three and one-half years later, in 1521, Luther was called before the Diet of Worms and asked whether he stood by the contents of his writings.  Luther responded:

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.”

Recently scholars have come to the view that, while Luther said the rest of this quote, he did not say: “Here I stand.  I can do no other.”  (In German:  “Hier stehe ich.  Ich kann nicht anders.”)  But whether or not he said those exact words, they are what he meant and what he did.  And they are the example he gives us to this day.  (Here and here.)

----------
Update (10/31/10 2:05 pm):  In today’s Parade magazine, Eric Konigsberg writes about “Lessons From the Great Pumpkin”:

“The true genius of the Great Pumpkin may be the way it sends up other holiday parables by having a character seek a deeper meaning in the sole holiday that has no real lesson to teach. Is there any other day we celebrate that is as empty of moral or historical significance?”

As Charlie Brown might say, “Good Grief!”

Earmarks – and the Story of a Gauge on a Boiler

A long time ago a minister at church was talking about a boiler she had seen.  The boiler had a gauge on the outside that, basically, told you what was going on inside the boiler.  By looking at the gauge, you could tell whether there was enough water in the boiler, whether it was too hot, etc.*  The minister went on to say that, in the way the gauge showed what was going on inside the boiler, the faithfulness of our actions showed the faithfulness that was inside us. 

I thought of this point recently when I read about the debate among Republicans on Capitol Hill about earmarks.  In March the House Republicans agreed to a one-year ban on earmarks.  But the Pledge to America that the House Republicans issued last week did not mention earmarks.  Representative Paul Ryan (R, WI) said that the Republicans intended to keep the ban, so it wasn’t necessary to mention it; i.e., it’s not something new.

Other Republicans, however, want to get rid of the ban.  Representative Jerry Lewis (R, CA) maintains earmarks are a form of direct democracy and that individual legislators know what their districts need better than government bureaucrats.  Senator Jim Inhofe (R, OK) says that cutting earmarks doesn’t cut spending and that “[d]eciding how money should be spent is what we are supposed to be doing in Congress.”**

I understand the theory of why earmarks, in some cases, can be okay or even good.  And I know that some representatives can be trusted.  But the fact is that too many Representatives and Senators have abused earmarks.  And while individual earmarks may not involve that much money (though the bridge to nowhere, which was originally approved by a Republican Congress, was to cost $223 million and that is real money), the total does add up.

But beyond that, earmarks are a symbol.  If Senators and Representatives aren’t willing to give up earmarks, how can we trust them to cut other spending?  They say they will, but why should we believe them?

This is a real problem for Republicans.  The Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress increased spending more than any administration since Lyndon Johnson.  Because of this history, Republicans need to demonstrate to voters that they really mean it when they say they will control spending this time.  As Paul Ryan says, “We need to prove that we’re not going to try to pork our way back to a permanent majority, as we were trying to do before.”

Which brings me back to the gauge on the boiler.  Republicans say they will cut spending if they get control of Congress, but will they really do it?  Will they really cut back on government?  Do they mean what they are saying?  A ban on earmarks would be a good gauge.

----------
* I am not sure whether I remember exactly what the gauge showed; it was a long time ago.  But the general point is right.

** The quotations and attributions in this post are from: Neil King, Jr., “Earmarks Cause GOP Rift,” The Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2010.

Update (9/28/10 12:33 pm): Corrected a typo in the title.

Interruptions

Back in January I quoted from a homily by Rev. Phil Blackwell of the Chicago Temple on the subject of vocation (here).  He recently said another thing that I wanted to mention because I thought it was really good.  I don’t have a copy of what he said, and my memory may be a little off, but his point was something along these lines (to the extent this comes out right, it is to his credit; to the extent it does not, it is my faulty memory):

“You need to think of interruptions or inconveniences in your life as an opportunity to serve.”

Jesus Christ Is Risen Today

For Easter:

"Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!
Our triumphant holy day, Alleluia!
Who did once, upon the cross, Alleluia!
Suffer to redeem our loss, Alleluia!

Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia!
Unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia!
Who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia!
Sinners to redeem and save, Alleluia!

But the pains which He endured, Alleluia!
Our salvation hath procured, Alleluia!
Now above the sky He’s king, Alleluia!
Where the angels ever sing, Alleluia!

Sing we to our God above, Alleluia!
Praise eternal as His love, Alleluia!
Praise Him, all you heavenly host, Alleluia!
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Alleluia!"

Vocation

I owe this to Rev. Phil Blackwell of the Chicago Temple (a United Methodist Church in downtown Chicago). This is from one of his recent homilies during the Wednesday noontime service (on 1 Samuel 3:1-10):

"God calls each one of us; do we hear it?

For about 1500 years that statement might have been considered blasphemous. It was thought that the only true vocation, that is, ‘calling,’ was to the religious orders, to be a priest or a nun. But, Martin Luther insisted that God wanted a priesthood of all believers, and if so, then every person was called by God. …

So, how do we hear God’s call in our lives today? … Parker Palmer … uses a Quaker term as the title of his small book on this very topic, Let Your Life Speak. … Where are your passions? What matters most in your life? …

[H]e quotes Frederick Buechner … who says that we find our vocation where ‘our deepest gladness meets the world’s greatest needs.’ We find our vocation where our deepest gladness meets the world’s greatest needs."