Obama and Romney fight for religious groups’ votes. Then there’s Romney’s Mormon faith
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0930/Obama-and-Romney-fight-for-religious-groups-votes.-Then-there-s-Romney-s-Mormon-faithSeparation of church and state may be a constitutional requirement in US government. But in Election 2012, religion has become an increasingly important factor. President Obama and Mitt Romney are focusing on particular religious groups.
By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / September 30, 2012
Three-year-old Dean Call holds a sign reading "Go Mitt Romney Mormons Rock" as Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign rally in Columbia, South Carolina in January.
Brian Snyder/REUTERS
Both President Obama and Mitt Romney are focusing on particular religious groups – Roman Catholic, Jewish, and Evangelical Christians. Mr. Romney’s religion – Mormonism – is being covered by the media like never before in US political history. (At least since the sect moved to Utah in the 19th century in order to practice its own beliefs – including, at that time, polygamy.)
Off to the side, meanwhile, is an apparent spat between the two most prominent Mormon politicians – Romney and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – which seems to bear on their religion’s theology.
The cover story in the current issue of Time magazine is headlined "The Mormon Identity: What Mitt Romney's faith tells us about his vision and values." It’s written by Jon Meacham, who’s a member of the Leadership Council of the Harvard Divinity School and whose books include “American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation.”
“One thing is clear: as a devout Mormon leader, Romney knows his church history, and he knows that difficulty and doubt are inherent elements of life,” Meacham writes. “The key thing is to remain faithful, to serve, to press ahead – to the next territory that might welcome you, to the next voter who might decide to give you a chance. From the outside, Romney's life looks to have been easy and affluent. There is, however, another angle of vision, one that reveals a deep-seated Romney instinct to survive and thrive in even the worst of storms.”
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Mormonism seems to have an ingrained, persistent sense of insularity - culturally, socially, religiously. And a persistent type of pragmatism, in that you do what you have to do to preserve Mormonism.
Moving from New York, to Missouri, to Illinois and eventually Utah (not yet a state at the time) they did what they had to do to maintain their insularity and viability for Mormonism. As Utah moved toward statehood, they dropped polygamy as an approved practice of the church in 1890. The federal government had outlawed polygamy in 1862. Lincoln, in an oft-quoted message to the Mormons said "go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone". They did, he did and the groups religious goal was achieved.
I think Romney shares some of that "do what you have to do" pragmatism in the political realm. If centrism works (Massachusetts) go centrist. If right wing rhetoric works go for it. Pragmatically place yourself to achieve a goal. In Romney's case, it's political, it's the Presidency.
Beyond his religion - that's interesting background, but not the real point - there's a calculating angle to this that is disturbing, shallow and false. Is there any there, there?
The history is fascinating, but it comes across as more of a cultural movement than a religion a lot of the time and pragmatism does seem to be a big driving force.
If it's pragmatic to reveal as little of your hand as you can, then that would account for the feeling that it is disturbing, shallow and false. You just can't tell if there is a there there.
