When Republicans fight: don’t you love it?

So Mitt Romney is blowing a gasket because Mike Huckabee asks: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
Of course, it’s a lie. Jesus and Joseph Smith are brothers, according to Mormons. (C’mon, we all know that.) And Jesus had multiple Mormon wives — Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary and Martha the sisters of Lazarus. (C’mon, we all knew that, too.)

Given the, not rough edges, but more willing rough elbows of the Huckabee campaign, a claim this blunt doesn’t surprise me at all. Huck’s shown he’s willing to get the brass knuckles out. (Sidebar: doesn’t this say something about Arkansas politics and politicians?)

And, sure, Huck is speaking in “code words” to evangelicals. But, Mitt, did you audience-test your “JFK speech” in advance of giving it? I can’t believe you really thought that it would tamp down rank-and-file conservative evangelical skeptics, let alone outright critics, to give such a speech without actually talking about Mormonism. OK, so you didn’t see the Huckabee Surge™. But, if this was supposed to be a pre-emptive speech, you should have anticipated something like this.

There's more: "When Republicans fight: don’t you love it?" >>

Mitt Romney likes Muslim prayer

Just not in his Cabinet, I guess. And, Mormonism? He treads even lighter than I expected. Among the highlights from his “JFK speech.”

And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love … the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.

Followed by the prerequisite bashing of a secularist straw man:

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Then, the Religious Right pandering:

Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

In other words, “I’ll appoint judges who keep the church-state ‘wall’ pretty low.”

Then, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution get fused:

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

The Constitution nowhere grounds any of our rights as being endowed by a Creator. Nice sleight of hand. (Of course, liberals can conflate the two documents, too.)

Then, the anti-terrorist pandering:

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

Final note: “Mormon/Mormonism” only mentioned once, in passing, in comparison to JFK’s Catholicism. As I said, even lighter than I expected.

There's more: "Mitt Romney likes Muslim prayer" >>

Romney: Heavy on religious liberty, light on Mormonism

It looks like that will be the thrust of Mitt Romney’s ”JFK speech,”, to be given at the George Bush Library in College Station, Texas

“'This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor's own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected,” said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden in a statement.

“Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation,” Madden said in his statement.

Notice how Madden carefully phrased his statement.

He’s going to talk first about religious liberty and tolerance, then how his own beliefs will inform his presidency.

The second graf has him saying faith is an important issue to many Americans. But not, his faith.

Now, that may be parsing a lot out of one word, but somehow I really doubt Mitt Romney is going to explain Mormonism.

Ancient gold tablets, magic spectacles, Jesus making a junket to America? Not likely to be heard.

Conversion pressures on American Indians in the West? Blacks as “second class Mormons” until the 1970s? Not likely to be discussed.

Nor are we going to hear about celestial marriages, baptisms for the dead, secret temple ceremonies, or those temple undergarments. (BG, you already know what they look like. Go look at the Truman pic in the Truman Library, where he’s got the Masonic apron; that’s where the Mormons stole the idea, along with many other things they stole from the Masons.)

Not that most of this stuff is really, that much sillier than the beliefs of other organized religions, at least in their more literalist leanings.

But for the Christian fundies Romney is courting, their beliefs are improbable precisely to show the power of God. Mormonism’s tenets? That’s just human lunacy.

It’s all whose ox is beng gored.

There's more: "Romney: Heavy on religious liberty, light on Mormonism" >>