Frank Bruni has penned a thoughtful and thought-provoking column in the
NYT. It's worth a read.
LAST week he did it again, wading into a discussion of money — or, rather, of the “very poor” who lack it — and succumbing to yet another pink slip of the tongue. Mitt Romney is forever being tripped up this election cycle by the topic of wealth.
Not, interestingly, religion.
While mentioning the "poverty" of Mormon missionaries is a bit absurd, Bruni does make other interesting points regarding Romney's failure to publicly embrace his faith.
Is Bruni wily like a fox, or sincere and insightful? Either way, I think he addresses the elephant in the room without the spittle-flecked hysteria and arm-flapping dramatics of other Times writers. The left is up against a bit of a wall; they can't wildly embrace Islam (and by extension "cultural diversity" as a whole) while denigrating the Mormon brand of Christianity. To do so would be trumpeting their hypocrisy, and make them look like...well... asses.
lr, I have no doubt that had Romney worn his faith on his sleeve as Mr Bruni seems to suggest he should, then that same Mr Bruni would attack Romney as a religious obsessive unfit to be president.
ReplyDeleteAny weapon to hand.
Here's a nice little (hit) piece by Eugene McCarthy and Keith C. Burris from 2000, close to the election.
During the primary campaign, Gov. George W. Bush was asked his favorite philosopher, thinker or historic figure. He named Jesus. (To his credit, Senator John McCain picked Theodore Roosevelt.)
Perhaps God does not object to political appropriation. But, in some sense, such tactics mock God. They also muddle politics.
And scripture warns that God is not to be mocked. Leave God in his heaven (or the human heart, when he is present there). Let the public square be filled with citizens.
Yeah! Because when Bush invoked Jesus, it was, like, un-American. Or something.
And so why is it a good idea if Romney invokes his Mormon faith?
Toward the beginning of their essay McCarthy and Burris excerpt a relevant quotation:
Whereas, as William Miller wrote in his book ''Piety along the Potomac,'' Eisenhower had a vague religion strongly held to, Kennedy had a strong religion vaguely held to.
These are the boundaries of presidential practice. Strong religions strongly held are not a winning formula. Vague religions vaguely held - ditto.
I admit a great deal of sympathy for Romney; he and I have something in common. Both of the religions we practice are rather difficult to explain, and easily misunderstood. I don't usually talk about this but...
...the fact of the matter is that a great deal of what the west considers "Buddhism", namely the Mahayana traditions of China, Japan (e.g. Zen) as well as the Vajrayana schools (most prominently in Tibet) are founded on the second and third "turning of the wheel" - sermons and teachings of the Buddha that are held to have occurred after his first teachings. These second and third teachings of Buddhist precepts are largely understood to be ahistorical. (A polite way of saying most historians and scholars doubt they happened at all. Timelines and geographies just don't make sense).
What do I believe? Honestly it's not something I worry about. Lama comes from Tibet, talks about the third turning, talks about a lot of other stuff that is inspiring and cultivates compassion for all beings in everyone who listens, leads us in a practice, we walk out whole renewed and (IMHO) better people. I don't worry much about doctrine. Do I "believe"? I honestly don't know exactly what the historical Buddha - Siddhartha Gautama - did or didn't teach. I don't argue with the Lamas, out of respect.
And I strongly suspect - and I have some evidence from the substantial number of LDS folks I've encountered since moving West 20 years ago - that a fair number of Mormons hold to pretty much the same attitude. What I can vouch for is that those LDS folks that I did encounter were great people who clearly had a deep well of spiritual support that worked for them.
And Bruni would want Romney to dive into that morass? Not content with grounding his faith in Christianity, but, gosh, let's rehash the whole Joseph Smith thing because, you know, it's so crucial to judging Romney's character? Please.
Romney isn't leaving the opening, and his enemies are pissed. That's my read.
I like the Mormon episode of South Park.
ReplyDeleteI also love St. Francis of Assisi, "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary." (yes, I know the provenance of that quote is disputed. So is that of most quotes).
I firmly believe in my faith, and I try to live it in everything. But I don't think that (a) shouting at those who don't necessarily agree is going to change any but the weakest minds - and those will only change again the next time someone shouts louder, and (b) wearing a countenance of pietical* mourning makes me a better Christian or Catholic.
If God is my father, then he wants me to have a good life and do good things. That's what fathers do, and God would be the BEST father. Because he's God, right?
So in believing this, I feel free to crack jokes - some of them at my own religious practices. I feel free to be with people who do not believe exactly as I believe because, well, um, isn't that what Jesus himself did?
And I have been accused of irreverence and not being a "real" Catholic more than once. But whatever. I'm not trying to impress Jack the Dick Deacon.
I feel for Romney on this one - he's damned whichever way he chooses. He's not pious enough, but W's past example of admitting he admires the philosophy of Jesus is using God to get votes. Sheesh.
*I made that word up. But I like it. I plan on using it again.
Also, I hate the Coexist bumper sticker. When I see someone preaching something like that, it's usually more to make a statement about the way they want to be viewed more than the way they actually live their lives.
ReplyDelete"What you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say," Ralph Waldo Emerson
Also, I hate the Coexist bumper sticker.
DeleteHow about this one?
imgw:"http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d170/lewy14/IMAG0366.jpg"
That one doesn't bother me as much as Coexist, because the atheist sporting such a thing believes all religions are codswallop, and is not pretending to be welcoming of everyone while practicing the soft pedagogy of low expectations in regards to CERTAIN people.
DeleteIf you know what I mean. And I'm pretty sure you do.
But in both cases, the bumper stickers are only placed to serve a selfish purpose, and that is to show how superior the stickee feels to the general population; either because they are smarter due to their more rational belief that there is no higher power or they are smarter because they understand that understanding is the only way to true peace.
What bumper stickers do for me is show me whom I can speak to. I can be, and am, friends with many people with whom I have various areas of disagreement. We can be friends, though, because neither of us have an interest in beating anyone who doesn't agree 100% with us over the head with nastiness. Someone with the stickers above wants to be nasty to those who don't agree with them.
"What bumper stickers do for me is show me whom I can speak to."
DeleteThat's why you gave the thumbs up to the one I mentioned here a few months ago LOL!
Sex is like pizza, when it's good it's great and even when it's bad it's still pretty good!
Exactly. Anyone with that bumper sticker and I would have a lot in common, I think.
Delete