December 11, 2007

Read This Column!

Hatched by Dafydd

I rarely do this. You know I rarely do this, and you know why: I'm far too enamored of the sound of my own typing to spend my time hyping someone else's griping.

But I have to say, just click here and read this splendid piece by Dennis Prager... and I don't say this just because I'm trying to suck up to the man (not just because).

Just a para or three, for the flavor:

It is not for this Jew to define a Christian. I only explain evangelical Christian opposition to Mormons calling themselves Christians to make the point that even as I understand their opposition to Mormons calling themselves Christian, I equally oppose voting for anyone based on his theology. Evangelicals have the right to proclaim Mormons as non-Christians, but they hurt themselves and their country if they measure a candidate's theology. They should concern themselves with a man's theology only when choosing a religious leader. When choosing a political leader, theology should not count.

The reason is -- and I have come to this conclusion after a lifetime of interaction with people of almost all faiths and writing about and studying religion -- theology does not appear to have much impact on people's values. Liberal Christians and Jews share virtually no theological beliefs yet think alike about virtually every important social value. So, too, conservative Christians and conservative Jews share virtually no theological beliefs, yet they think alike about virtually every important social value.

Meanwhile liberal and conservative Protestants are in agreement on theological matters -- both believe in the Trinity, in the Messiahship of Jesus, on Jesus being the Son of God, on salvation through faith rather than through works, and more -- yet they differ about virtually every social value. Obviously, shared theology doesn't create shared moral or social values.

It is, of course, a meditation on those evangelicals and others who call themselves Christian but don't appear to practice much Christian charity... on those men who wear their religion on their ballots, and who loudly proclaim they can never vote for Mitt Romney because Mormonism is "a cult." (What do they think Christianity started out as, during the days of imperial Rome?)

It's a fine, fine hymn which every him and her should hear.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, December 11, 2007, at the time of 4:01 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2640

Comments

The following hissed in response by: nash

Eh, his argument isn't convincing to me and I'm not an Evangelical. For the "What Would Jesus Do?" crowd, it sounds like their values are directly influenced by their theology. Prager is basing his argument on moral relativism. There is no one true theology, all theologies are equally valid. I think that will offend more religious folk than convert them to the Romney camp.

The above hissed in response by: nash [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 11, 2007 6:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bill B (AKA Theocoid)

What liberal and conservative protestants share is a similar vocabulary. Their theologies can be quite different. The standard test is to compare their views on the statements of the Nicene Creed. Mormons share many of the same theological terms but hold completely different theological concepts.

The above hissed in response by: Bill B (AKA Theocoid) [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 11, 2007 12:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: Pam

Dafydd, I haven't seen any article by you about the Huckabee surge. I guess I'm wondering with all the anger over Bushes spending why Republicans seem to be gravatiting toward another Compassonate Conservate, especially since at the same time we are supposed to really, really upset about illegal immigration.

The above hissed in response by: Pam [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 11, 2007 6:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Pam:

Dafydd, I haven't seen any article by you about the Huckabee surge.

Ah, this gives me the opportunity to again reiterate the founding principle of Big Lizards!

We don't normally report news; we're not journalists. Rather, we are "second-draft" analysts: We take stories that are already published and analyze them, seeking connections that were not noticed in the rush to hit a deadline and evaluating claims on the basis of a cooler head and time to reflect.

If journalism is "the first draft of history," then people like us are the second-draft.

At the moment, there is nothing in the Huckasurge to which we can bring a fresh perspective; those bloggers with real-life electoral experience who are already blogging on Huckabee are doing a better job on that issue than could we.

At some point, this may change; if Sachi, Dave Ross, or I thinks up a good angle on Huckabee that hasn't been explored yet, we reserve the right to jump into the conversation. But until then, we watch, listen, and read.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 11, 2007 7:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Pam

Dafydd ok, but let me ask you one question. Do you that Huck's surge proves that Karl Rove is right about Republicans, not Conservatives, but mainstream Reps. Rove says bascially all msr care about are judges and low taxes, not spending, hence the idea of Compassionate Conservatism!

The above hissed in response by: Pam [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 11:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Pam:

No. I think the Huckasurge proves that many evangelicals (a) are afraid of Mormons, and (b) are interested in no issue but abortion: They'll support whoever shouts the loudest about banning it.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 12:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Pam

Fair enough! I did notice the article above. Well said as always!

But you know I'm an Evagelical and the reason I don't like Mitt is because he's a flip/flopper from Mass and didn't we just reject one of those last election. Huck seems even less prepared on foregin policy than GWB! That's why I asked!

The above hissed in response by: Pam [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 4:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

"the reason I don't like Mitt is because he's a flip/flopper from Mass"

I don't think that's fair. More accurately, I think it's an unthinking smear that got a lot of press because it's simple, much like the simple smears that Big Lizards have been echoing about Huck. (More on that later.)

Mitt is mainly -- as far as I can tell -- portrayed as a flip-flopper because he changed from prochoice to prolife. The reason this is a mere smear and not a reasonable doubt is that Mitt has been consistent since he changed. He hasn't flipped in the wind; he used to have one position then, and he has a different one now. The reason for that change may very well be the official explanation: he was persuaded by reasonable arguments. Maybe that's false, but if so, that's a different kind of argument.

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 17, 2007 2:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

Okay, I did mention that I'd explain why I thought the Huck smears were petty. Yeah, they're mostly based on out-of-context ancient historical quotes... So let's look at the recent one. A single question, after an answer that fully confirms Mitt's right to run, is blown up to be some kind of religious test about Mitt's right to run! The really amazing thing is that even though the Mormon authorities unanimously confirm that the answer to Huck's question is "yes", people seem to think the answer is "no".

(BTW, Dafydd, the New York Times did a better job at analyzing this one than you did. And no, it's not odd that a person who doesn't know much about Mormons would ask that question -- since he would've heard it before. What would be odd was if he asked it in public, or from a person who wouldn't know the answer, or didn't apologize -- none of which are the case here.)

BTW, in spite of my dislike of the tactics Big Lizards is supporting here against Huck, I'm still in agreement with them that Mitt is the better candidate.

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 17, 2007 3:03 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved