Here’s an article over at the New York Times about the growing belief in creationism among Muslims in the Islamic world. I’m not quite sure what to make of it. The article seems to go out of its way to suggest that it is a) not “young-Earth” creationism like within some subsets of American Christianity, and b) that it is not very widespread. But this contradicts what I’ve heard from a number of experts in Islam over the years, and what I heard personally from Muslims in visits to mosques I made in 2002.

In those visits, I got the distinct impression that many Muslims believe in something like young-Earth creationism, though it certainly varies in form from that one finds in Christianity. The NYT article suggests that some Muslims take the “creation in six days” more figuratively, since the Koran specifically says that the days might be “ages” of a thousand years, but that’s not all that different from what many (if not most) Christian creationists believe. In short, the article seems to go out of its way to say that Islamic creationism isn’t like those kooky Evangelicals in the US, but everything I saw in the article led me to the opposite conclusion. I simply cannot imagine a NYT article giving this much benefit of the doubt to conservative Christians. No surprise there.

As I’ve said before, I have no problem with evolution as a theory, and as far as compatibility/incompatibility with scripture, I think it’s all rather silly. But it’s also important to note that the real objections Evangelicals have with evolution is philosophical and theological, not scientific. Sure, some creationists make (or try to make) scientific arguments, and by their fixation on science it’s understandable that one could see it that way. But their issue is not with the science per se, but with what they think the implications of evolution are for their theology.

And they’re not being paranoid, since many outspoken scientists (say, Richard Dawkins), are making precisely those philosophical arguments that annoy creationists so acutely. It should be noted that Dawkins’ arguments from science about God are about as legitimate as creationist’s claims about science. Dawkins is not a very convincing philosopher. The simple fact is that the science does not back his philosophical conclusions the way he thinks they do.

Still, the rise of creationism among Muslims is interesting, but completely predictable. Here’s this for science among Muslims (and this came from the Imam of a very large, Manhattan mosque): Adam was white because he was made from a bone; Eve was black, because she was made from the dirt. This was the Imam’s explanation for the origin of the races. And no, when I asked, he specifically answered that he didn’t mean it metaphorically, but literally. Yikes.

While I’m tempted to just say that Evangelicals (and Muslims) should just get over their opposition to evolution, I know that’s counterproductive. Sure, the whole thing is really based on a misreading of the intent of the authors of the Old Testament (it’s more about who we are as humans in relation to God than it is about the physical, scientific causes for the existence of man), but their philosophical arguments about the relative merits of scientific materialism are worth taking seriously. As usual, most Evangelicals take up the wrong flag in defense of principle. There are any number of arguments they could use to put people like Dawkins in their place, but arguing the science isn’t it. After all, it’s not the science Dawkins gets wrong. It’s most everything else.

But I digress…

tags: religion, science
No Squawks »

I’ve talked about this before on this blog, but I recently came across a post at Skepticblog that kind of irritated me because it demonstrated all the problems over the debate between evolution’s defenders and its critics. In particular, it was this post about a debate, of sorts, between the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Jonathan Wells and his critics.

My point here is not to rehash the debate. I have no problem with evolution, as I’ve said. The key element for me was my discovery that the common claim of there being no observed speciation events was simply wrong. Since scientists have indeed observed the emergence of various species through a variety of pressures (including naturally induced changes) it seems rather foolish to me to object to evolution as a theory.

That said, evolution’s defenders need to stop being pricks.

The skepticblog post, by Brian Dunning, starts off its criticism of Dr. Wells with an admitted ad hominem:

I would like to rebut a few of the things Dr. Wells said. But first, I think it’s important to understand who Dr. Wells is and what he’s about. Now, there’s no way to do this without the appearance of an ad hominem attack, so all I can do is state that I’ve got nothing negative to say about him personally (I don’t know him personally) and nothing I say about him or his background should be construed to say anything about the accuracy of his scientific claims.

If the information is not in regards to his scientific claims, then why say it? Because it is not merely the “appearance” of an ad hominem, but actually is an ad hominem attack. Sure, it makes Wells look silly to say that he is a member of the Unification Church, and that he spent time in prison as a conscientious objector. That his degree was paid for by the Unification Church. Yadda yadda.

But again, as Dunning admits, this has nothing to do with the argument. For a counterexample, should we ignore everything Sir Isaac Newton said about anything just because he was into numerology? Of course not. That’s what an ad hominem argument suggests we do, though. And despite Dunning’s argument to the contrary, that’s his purpose in including all this information. Denning thinks this information matters. But it doesn’t.

By starting off with an ad hominem, Dunning invites those he’s trying (ostensibly) to convince to ignore him. In short, he’s being a prick.

His other error stems from questioned motives. It is “obvious” that Wells is really trying to prove a literal interpretation of Young Earth Creationism. Wells is being “disingenuous” about believing in a four-and-a-half billion year-old earth.

The problem here is that Dunning is making all sorts of assumptions about both Wells and the Discovery Institute that simply aren’t true. For instance, he doesn’t seem to recognize that perhaps the Institute’s comfort with Wells (as a Unification Church member and as a conscientious objector), which Dunning questions, is because Discovery is actually being honest about what it is. Sure, most critics of evolution are going to be fundamentalists, but certainly not all of them. And opposition to evolution is not, de facto, an admission of being a fundamentalist Christian. The very fact that Wells, a Moony, is a fellow at Discovery should inform the skeptic that his assumptions about the Institute may be wrong.

Of course, it’s rhetorically convenient to lump Discovery in as a bastion of Christian fundamentalism (it isn’t). Senior Fellow Michale Behe has said that he believes in common descent, for instance. There are Catholics, Anglicans, and other Christians among the Fellows of the organization, hardly any of which are fundamentalists. There is a wide diversity of belief among the people attached to the group, and to assume otherwise is to demonstrate a distinct lack of curiousity on Denning’s part. In short, he’s being a prick. He’s assuming his opponents are ideologically driven when it’s certainly possible (even likely) that they’re not.

And by making the suggestion, Denning opens himself (and his blog) up to the suggestion that he is, himself, as ideologically driven as those he’s criticizing. Rather than taking the high road and limiting his criticism to the scientific facts, he’s taken on Wells personally, raising questions about his religious beliefs and associations. This is not how you win arguments.

Of course, being a prick about this doesn’t mean Denning is wrong on the scientific facts. But you’ve got to wade through a river of rhetorical shit to get to the real point. Few people are going to do that.

Of course, this doesn’t matter if you’re preaching to the choir, which clearly Denning is. The post isn’t meant to actually convince anyone. The problem is that nearly all criticisms of Discovery and other dissenters from Darwinism are approached the same way. It’s idiotic.

And it’s idiotic because the scientific evidence is on Denning’s side. But his attitude makes it sound like it’s not. The defensiveness by beginning with an ad hominem undercuts the strength of the scientific arguement. He makes the mistake of allowing his own distaste for Discovery lead him into making assumptions that further undercut his own credibility.

Denning wants to “entertain, enlighten, and educate” he says. But he’s really only (maybe) doing the first. If he really wanted to educate people, he would stick to the unadulterated facts. The ad hominem is unnecessary. Wells is simply wrong.

If defenders of evolution want to get their point across, they need to stop with the ideological baloney. Stick to the science. Answer the criticisms. Admit evolutionary theory’s weaknesses. Stop being so defensive. Most of the post was aimed at discrediting Wells (admittedly, not that difficult), rather than reiterating the most important points about scientific fact.

Partly I say this because I’ve worked in the past with some of these people and know them. They’re not being disingenuous. Most of them have philosophical objections to the methodological naturalism of modern science. I think that’s a legitimate point, even as I recognize that there’s no real solution to it. Science is what it is, and should remain so. Their opposition to evolution is sincere and rational. Painting them as ideologues is lazy, and in the end, counterproductive.

tags: culture, religion, science
1 Squawk »

Over at Big Hollywood is an interesting list of cinema clichés that should die.  Number one is:

1. The Crazed Vet/Soldier: According to Hollywood, if you’re a veteran who fought in a war or a soldier returning from one, you are insane, dangerous and probably a murderous sociopath. Either that or you’re a pathetic loser with mental problems. An emotional basket case. And of course, only poor people join the military, only uneducated stooges easily fooled by government propaganda. No one joins the military because they believe in something. If they do they will find out how foolish they were and become disgusted with America.

I’ve complained about this to Amy so many times that I’m sure she’s sick of hearing about it.  But it’s true: if you’ve been in war and seen action, you’re probably suffering from PTSD, and are either homicidal or suicidal.  Or both.  And former Special Forces soldiers are the worst. They either have PTSD (as above), or they’ve joined some hyper-violent private security firm or some organized crime body that robs banks. Has to be true, because I saw it on Numb3rs, CSI and just about every other TV drama out there.

3. The Evil Christian: Hollywood seems to say that anyone who believes in Christianity is a sexual deviant, crook or a murderer. Christians are always shown to be hypocrites and phonies. They’re never good people. They’re exposed as pious frauds when their “true colors” are revealed.

This is very often (though by means not “always”) true. Very few TV shows actually have religious characters who are central to the main story. Some claim to be religious but never attend services. Some family dramas are exceptions, but in most one-hour dramas on TV, if a character is a Christian, they are most likely a fundamentalist who is secretly a pedophile or murderer of some sort. Not that this is never the case, but like the PTSD-suffering soldiers, the ratio on TV is completely out of whack with reality.

Anyway, the others are interesting too, although I think the author of the list is perhaps a little too easily offended.  In any case, the point is solid: Hollywood cuts itself off from a number of rich plot and character possibilities by being blinded in this way by its cultural biases.  Let me just note that there are good examples of believing Christian characters.  I’m immediately reminded of Shepherd Book of Firefly, who was not only a believing Christian, but a good and respected man on the crew.  His religion was never denegrated on the ship by the other characters, even though some were obviously not on the same page.  And it’s worth remembering that the character was created by Joss Whedon, a liberal atheist.  It’s a good example of the sort of thing that Hollywood sometimes misses out on by not taking its commitment to tolerance and diversity seriously.

tags: culture, movies, religion, television
2 Squawks »

I’ve been reading quite a few of these urban fantasy novels recently.  You know, the ones with the women on the front cover who all have those tramp stamps of lupine or vampiric stylings?  Anyway, they’re almost always entertaining.  And most actually take the folklore around mythical characters and beasts quite seriously while giving it their own unique spin.

But one thing bugs me: many of them have at least one religious bad guy.  And that bad guys is almost always a lunatic fundamentalist who wants to exterminate all the beasts (which he assumes are evil), in order to “save the children” or some other suitably ridiculous argument.

Now, I have no doubt that there are such people out there.  I’ve known some.  But the religious bad guys in these books tend to always be the same.  And it gets a little boring.

That’s my key problem with it: it’s unoriginal.  It has been done to death.  So why not try something different?  Sure, having the violent, lunatic fundamentalist will make the action more interesting, but couldn’t they add in an opponent who isn’t so mustache-twirlingly two-dimensional?

Then there’s the theme of the books: how not all of these creatures are evil killers, that they’re just normal people with the same diversity of personality as everyone else.  We should be tolerant of them and respect them like other people.

Except, you know, religious believers who are all the same, are all bigots and hypocrites and want to kill us or lock us in ghettos.

How does the cognitive dissonance not kill them?!

But the real problem is that the religious bad guys in these books have a point, after all, even if their actions are themselves evil.  These werewolves and vampires are freaking dangerous.  They do kill people, often for no apparent reason.  That’s usually part of the plot of the book: murders and mayhem by supernatural beings.  So we spend two hundred pages reading about werewolves and other assorted creatures desperately fighting their animal natures, short tempers, and sometimes successfully (and sometimes not) controlling their supernatural strength and natural predatory instincts.  Then we’re supposed to hate a character for thinking they’re dangerous?

It’s a stretch.  Of course, that’s why the bad guys are always bigots.  If they weren’t self-righteous parodies of religious believers, their arguments might actually be convincing.

Of course, this need not be an issue.  If the religious characters in the books were portrayed more realistically, then the books would be far better for it.  Bad guys are better when they’re not cardboard cutouts, when they have real, understandable motivations, even if they are portrayed as being wrong.

I think back to the book Contact, by Carl Sagan, and can see that he at least tried to take the religious argument seriously.  In most of these urban fantasies, there’s really no attempt to take the other side of things seriously.  Some books (like Brigg’s Mercy Thompson series) have a character who is at least nominally religious.  Most of these books, though, would benefit from allowing their bad guys to actually explain why they’re doing what they’re doing, rather than relying on stereotypes and political correctness to generate our outrage for us.

Instead we’re given characters spouting off Exodus 22:18 as if it were the last word, even though it makes no sense in the context of the story.  It’s a little bit frustrating.  Strawmen, even in novels, have a way of sucking the energy out of the plot.  Keep the fundies if you want, but balancing them out with more reasonable critics would make the books better, and keep their characters honest.

tags: Books, religion
No Squawks »

I don’t have much to say about this other than that the coverage by the news media has been predictably ludicrous.  Especially as new details have emerged.  I’ll just point to this article by Andrew Bostom as largely reflecting my opinion, and say that I’m not surprised: either by the media’s unwillingness to recognize what is going on, or that Islamist extremists continue to do what they’ve been doing for decades now.

If there’s been one thing I regret about the Iraq war, it’s that the war has been used as a cover by the media to ignore what is going on in other parts of the world, including Africa and South Asia.

The media has stuck to its standard narrative: they ignore the self-proclaimed motives of the attackers, they attack Jewish victims by calling them “fundamentalists” and “extremists” or by labeling them “missionaries” (which imply that they somehow deserved to be killed for their actions), and try to find some way of deflecting the blame of the attacks onto the West.

What will it actually take to get the media and our leaders (*cough* Obama *cough*) to break out of its blindness?  9/11 obviously wasn’t enough.  Or any of the attacks since.  How many will have to die?  Thousands?  Tens of thousands?  Hundreds of thousands?  I had hopes after 9/11 that we would finally see a recovery of objectivity on this, but it hasn’t happened.  If it hasn’t happened now, it likely never will.

tags: media, religion, war
No Squawks »

There’s been a great deal said about the recent comments by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, about shari’a (Islamic) law in England, and I’m not going to say much more about it than to say the Williams’ comments were both ignorant and dangerous. Anne Applebaum makes some comments here in the Washington Post, and I can pretty much endorse her opinion.

My opinion of Rowan Williams himself is more complex. He is a scholar. He’s a thoughtful man, and speaks with a great deal of nuance most of the time. And I have to admit that I figured his actual comments were probably not as bad as they were originally reported. I was wrong in this case. They were worse. There was no saving grace in this nuance. Williams is not a stupid man. But he is an archbishop. His political commentary has always been foolish to the point of stupidity. It’s a common trait among clergy. Even the most erudite theologians stumble about like idiots when talking about politics. Williams would do better to leave these topics to experts in politics and law.

But here’s another article, in The Independent, about the rise of so-called “honor” violence in England. That is, violence against women whose actions (or perceived actions) harm the “honor” of the family. Sometimes it’s just beatings. Sometimes it’s outright murder. Just note that the word “Muslim” doesn’t appear until paragraph fifteen, even though this type of crime is almost solely found in Muslim communities.

None of this is surprising. “Honor killings” are common, after all: in Iran, the West Bank, Gaza, Egypt, and a host of other Islamic countries, as are forced marriages. But in England?

Here’s a comment from Applebaum:

Every time police shrug their shoulders when a Muslim woman complains that she has been forced to marry against her will, every time a Western doctor tries not to notice the female circumcisions being carried out in his hospital, they are acting in the spirit of the archbishop of Canterbury. So is the social worker who dismisses the plight of an illiterate, house-bound woman, removed from her village and sent across the world to marry a man she has never met, on the grounds that her religion prohibits interference. That’s why — if there is to be war between the British tabloids and the archbishop — I’m on the side of the Sun [newspaper, who has campaigned for Williams' resignation over this affair].

I’ll admit that I have no idea where this willingness to acquiesce to the more brutal version of shari’a comes from. The Western legal tradition has, over time, come to incorporate a tolerance for the variety of religious diversity we naturally find in open societies. But since when are we willing to set aside fundamental human rights? We’re fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to rid people of the excesses of imperialist Islam, and yet allowing it to thrive in our own borders? What kind of foolishness is this? Is it no surprise that it’s coming from people in the West who should know better? And yet Williams still doesn’t seem to understand what everyone is so upset about?

tags: culture, human rights, politics, religion
No Squawks »

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the role of religion in American politics, not only because of candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, but also because candidates in both parties now feel obligated to make their faith part of the appeal to voters (or as a cudgel against their opponents).

Rod Dreher has an article which does a great job of laying out the political and religious realities in the current debate. Please, go right now and read it all. It’s a great primer.

It’s about time we had a “get real” moment when it comes to faith in politics. Yes, faith has an important role in American public life and it is a critical part of our national discussion on just about every issue. On the other hand, discussions about faith often end up as shouting matches. I have my own problems with Mitt Romney as a candidate, but none of them have to do with his Mormonism.

Dreher starts off his article with a warning: that he’s about to offend just about everyone. Well, he didn’t offend me. In fact, I think he had everything just about right.

tags: democracy, elections, politics, religion
No Squawks »

Remember that story from about a year and a half ago, which had National Geographic discovering an ancient Gnostic text which claimed that Judas was unfairly maligned by Christians? The story was everywhere: nearly every major media outlet covered the story, giving creedance to the claim made by National Geographic (which was in charge of translating the text).

Now, it turns out, the translating team made basic mistakes which actually make the text say the opposite of what National Geographic claimed:

Unfortunately, after re-translating the society’s transcription of the
Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While
National Geographic’s translation supported the provocative interpretation of
Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no
hero, he is a demon. Several of the translation choices made by the society’s
scholars fall well outside the commonly accepted practices in the field. For
example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas
as a “daimon,” which the society’s experts have translated as “spirit.”
Actually, the universally accepted word for “spirit” is “pneuma ” — in Gnostic
literature “daimon” is always taken to mean “demon.”

I had my own set of concerns about the story when it came out. First, the story didn’t quite get Christianity’s pespective on Judas’ betrayal correct. Sure, Judas was paid. But he didn’t do it purely out of a desire for money. The other problem being that this was a Gnostic text. So, yes, it says “The Gospel of Judas,” but it wasn’t written by Judas, but by someone a century later, who probably never knew Judas or those closest to the story. Niether was the text really a new discovery, as it was referenced in some of the early church writings–with reasons given for why it was rejected.

But this is really the final nail in the coffin of this story. But it will never receive the same attention the original story did. Indeed, one wonders how National Geographic (which has now admitted the mistake) could have been so boneheaded. Here’s the re-translator’s take:

That said, I think the big problem is that National Geographic wanted an
exclusive. So it required its scholars to sign nondisclosure statements, to not
discuss the text with other experts before publication. The best scholarship is
done when life-sized photos of each page of a new manuscript are published
before a translation, allowing experts worldwide to share information as they
independently work through the text. Another difficulty is that when National
Geographic published its transcription, the facsimiles of the original
manuscript it made public were reduced by 56 percent, making them fairly useless
for academic work. Without life-size copies, we are the blind leading the blind.
The situation reminds me of the deadlock that held scholarship back on the Dead
Sea Scrolls decades ago. When manuscripts are hoarded by a few, it results in
errors and monopoly interpretations that are very hard to overturn even after
they are proved wrong.

In other words, National Geographic needed a story to print before Easter, they wanted an exclusive, and so they cut off their scholars from peer review to protect their story.

Over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that unless you’re reading news from a source which has specific expertise in an area, be skeptical. Very skeptical. If you want science news, go to a science magazine or a science journal. If you want religion news, go to a religion magazine or journal. In those cases, the editors know the readers have keen bovine excrement detectors, and as a result know better than to print sensationalist headlines without evidence or peer review. In just about every other case, there is significant editorial pressure to produce tabloid-like articles. National Geographic’s story was little more than a PR stunt, which it has clearly gotten away with. That’s unfortunate, not only because a lot of people came away from the story with the exact opposite of the truth, but because National Geographic (a very reputable magazine, when it’s reporting within its genre) sold its credibility for a moment in the sun it didn’t deserve.

tags: ethics, media, religion
No Squawks »

It’s still early, but it looks like the movie version of the first book in Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy is not quite living up to expectations. There will be a lot of ink (digital and otherwise) spilled on this, so I’ll add my few bits.

I haven’t seen the movie, and am unlikely to. It doesn’t really interest me. The expectations for the movie were somewhat akin to the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Narnia movies, all of which have been insanely successful.

So far I haven’t seen mentioned the obvious thing Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Narnia share which Golden Compass does not.

Yes, I’m talking about Christianity. It’s not really about religion though, as the themes in Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings (and the Narnia movie, as well) are rather subtle. Some people may not recognize the Christian themes in those works unless they’re explicitly pointed out.

I remember when Narnia came out, blogger Andrew Sullivan complained about what he believed was the un-biblical image of Jesus as a lion (which, I guess, he thought was too aggressive). Apparently, even Christians (Sullivan is Catholic) aren’t aware of all the symbols used in the bible (”Behold: Weep not, the Lion of Judah, the Root of David…” etc., in Revelation 5).

I also remember (this was before the Rings movies came out, but while the hype machine was in high gear), explaining to a guy in grad school (a Catholic) about the three Christ figures of LotR (Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf) and how they all go through a ritual death, descent, battle, ascent, and transformation. He was impressed. Then I told him about the lembas, in Rings, and how Tolkien was directly referencing the Eucharist. He was flabergasted. He’d never thought about it. Me, being stupid, just assumed a Christian (especially a Catholic!) would pick up on these things. People don’t go to movies for those tidbits, but they’re usually intrigued when they’re pointed out.

So if it’s not about faith, what is it about, really? Whereas Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Narnia all focused on putting together a story with mythic archtypes which were positive and inspiring (mostly with implicit, if not explicit, Christian themes), Pullman’s book is different. His intent is to tear down the beliefs of others. He’s not building anything. He’s not arguing for anything, but against something. Against something which most Americans believe in. In Pullman’s trilogy, God turns out to be the bad guy. That’s interesting, but don’t expect most people who believe in God to pay to see it.

I don’t feel very strongly about Pullman’s book. Make a movie of it, I don’t care. But the choice of the movie studios to make a $180 million dollar movie out of it? I would have warned them to be careful. But let’s separate the ideological out of this, and look at another fantasy movie based on a book with a huge following: Eragon.

The movie tanked. Why? No offense to author Christopher Paolini–who was a teenager when he wrote the book–but the book was lousy. Entertaining, to a degree, but lousy. Better than you’d expect from most 18-year-olds, but not very good. The archtypes defined by Tolkien are all there, but it’s obvious Paolini just didn’t understand how to use them. The book was uplifting, but it wasn’t put together well. That takes experience Paolini just didn’t have.

What I’m saying is that these movies need to tap into a set of fundamental elements of the human psyche. Tolkien learned this from reading Beowulf, and recognizing the clearly Christian themes of virtue in the tale (sadly, it seems, the recent movie version of Beowulf may have missed these elements, to its detriment). These stories need not be explicitly Christian (Harry Potter didn’t seem to be until the very last volume) to be successful.

So Golden Compass does deliberately what Eragon did inadvertently. As a fantasy, it did not adequately tap into those elements which make these movies blockbusters. In fact, Pullman’s purpose was exactly the opposite. To tear those elements to shreds. That’s his prerogative, of course, but it doesn’t exactly make for a blockbuster–something the movie studios should have recognized, if they’d done their homework.

Now, I’m sure Golden Compass will not be a complete bust. I guess what I’m saying is that it’s not really Pullman’s fault if the movie doesn’t make money. Mostly that has to do with the studio’s willingness to spend a lot of money on making the movie without really understanding what they were doing. Pullman seems perfectly content with his books, successes as they are.

I’m sure some will crow over the numbers as a vindication of their opposition to the movie. If that’s what some people consider a cultural victory for Christianity, I’m not impressed. Is it better to tear down Pullman, or write another Lord of the Rings?

tags: Books, culture, movies, religion
No Squawks »

There was a huge run-up in publicity toward yesterday’s speech by presidential candidate Mitt Romney about his Mormon faith. Reaction is coming in, most of which is negative. Here’s Lee Harris at TCS Daily on Romney’s failure:

The Reuters headline said: “Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House.” Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place.

Harris makes the obvious point that Romney modeled his speech after the one given by John F. Kennedy, reassuring protestant America that he would not allow the Vatican to interfere at the White House. But unlike Catholics, American protestants never suspected the Mormons of wanting to interfere in the White House. And so Romney’s statement seems to be an example of protesting too much.

Harris points out Romney’s catch-22:

To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult…

Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don’t support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance.

Romney is in the awkward position of being on the same page policy-wise with evangelical Christians. He agrees with them on abortion, gay marriage, and most other social issues. He’s economically conservative. But, theologically, Mormonism is considered outside the Christian fold. And for evangelicals, that means that they have weakened confidence in his commitment to those issues. Not to mention the fact that Mormon beliefs are sometimes quite strange. Even many secularists who think traditional Christian beliefs are nonsense think Mormon beliefs are a whole order of magnitude beyond comprehension.

On the other hand, by invoking the American tradition of religious tolerance, he is directly offending evangelicals. As Harris says, Romney is suggesting that their lack of support for him is un-American. But American evangelicals read that tradition of tolerance in their own way. Tolerate, fine. But to imply, as Romney does, that the tradition of tolerance mandates such support is just ridiculous. The whole tradition is about religious freedom. And that means that evangelicals are free to make of Romney’s religious beliefs what they will. While our tradition mandates against official laws with religious tests for office, our tradition of freedom assures individuals the right to apply that test if they so choose. Romney’s view of the tradition comes across to evangelicals as being dismissive of what they see as significant disagreements.

Sure, those disagreements might be theological, but they are important to evangelicals. And our tradition assures them the right to make their decisions how they will. That might seem foolish to atheists, or inconvenient to Mormons like Romney, but that’s their right.

Romney may still be able to salvage his image among evangelicals. But it’s likely this speech hurt him more than it helped.

tags: culture, elections, politics, religion
No Squawks »