COULD AL SHARPTON BE RIGHT ABOUT MITT ROMNEY’S FAITH?

Taking a break from Ford Motor Company during the annual meeting, Speedzzter turns the focus to politics (and religion).

[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: "It’s a sad day in America when debating doctrines of theology is reduced to mindless, irrelevant name-calling. Yet Mitt Romney’s failure to engage the issues implicated on objective terms and his resort to the "bigot" label is precisely that. It’s a punt and a gutless dodge, plain and simple. Gov. Romney – if he’s a real leader -- must show the strength of character to be candid . . . and not hide behind, labels, slogans, ad hominem attacks (even veiled ones) and the personal flaws of his critics. ]

COMPLETE ANALYSIS:

The controversial Reverend Al Sharpton has ignited another brush fire with criticism this week of GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Rev. Sharpton said "those of us who believe in God" will defeat Romney for the White House. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070510/D8P1DLHO1.html

Romney fired back. According to the Associated Press, Romney blasted Sharpton claiming that the comment could be viewed as "a bigoted comment."

"‘It shows that bigotry still exists in some corners . . . I thought it was a most unfortunate comment to make.’"

Sharpton clarified his comments, saying "A Mormon, by definition, believes in God. They don't believe in God the way I do, but by definition, they believe in God."

The mainstream media, in reporting on the controversy surrounding Romney’s faith, often compares it to the controversy over John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism in the 1960 campaign.

Al Sharpton’s boast may be somewhat presumptuous, in that God Almighty, in His exclusive sovereignty, has often permitted all sorts of individuals (including rock-ribbed atheists) to ascend to the heights of power. Moreover, Al Sharpton is hardly the poster child for level-headed discourse or multi-ethnic tolerance.

However, the Sharpton-Romney dust-up does engage a series of interesting questions:

1. Is any criticism of Mormonism bigotry?

2. Is Romney similarly situated to John F. Kennedy in 1960 on matters of faith?

BUT FIRST, IS MORMONISM JUST ANOTHER CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION?

A 1998 law review article entitled City of Boerne V. Flores Wrecks RFRA: Searching for Nuggets among the Rubble, 23 Am. Ind. L. Rev. 285 (1998-1999), sheds some much needed light on this subject:

"The Mormons are formally known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Doctrinally, the Mormon religion's official name is somewhat misleading, in that Mormon theology diverges significantly from orthodox denominational forms of Christianity."

"Mormon apologists and some secular or secularized religion scholars operating at a higher level of abstraction may argue against the implicit assumption that Mormonism is not merely a divergent denomination within Christianity. Notwithstanding semanticist S.I. Hayakawa's sagacious observation that definitions are only descriptive about how people use language, see S.I. HAYAKAWA, LANGUAGE IN THOUGHT AND ACTION 155-63 (3d ed. 1972) . . . ., any definition of the Christian faith reasonably based on generally held, orthodox theological doctrines must exclude the LDS cult. Some scholars argue that terms such as cult, sect, and denomination should be used interchangeably. See Cult, in THE ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY OF THE WESTERN CHURCHES 246-47 (T.C. O'Brien ed., 1970) . . . . "

"Other scholars argue that analytical precision is fostered by meaningful, exclusive definitions based on the relative level of theological orthodoxy. See e.g., Ronald M. Enroth, What Is a Cult, in A GUIDE TO CULTS AND NEW RELIGIONS 11-24 (Ronald M. Enroth ed., 1983) . . . ; EIDSMOE, supra note 32, at 326-27; Irving Hexham, Cults, in EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY 289 (Walter A. Elwell ed., 1984) . . . . "

"Systematic Theologian Anthony A. Hoekema suggests nine factors which differentiate cults from churches or denominations:

(1) Cults abruptly break from historic Christian structures and confessions;

(2) Cults build major doctrines around insignificant points from the Bible;

(3) Cults tend to view their members as having superior holiness or advocate perfectionism;

(4) Cults attach significant importance to extrascriptural authority sources;

(5) Cults elevate a person or persons to equal or similar importance to Jesus Christ;

(6) Cults reject traditional Trinitarian formulations of the Godhead;

(7) Cults deny orthodox views on justification by grace, substituting works or combination forms of salvation;

(8) Cults tend to claim that their group is the exclusive community of saved or redeemed persons;

(9) Cults believe that their group will have a central role in eschatology.

EIDSMOE, supra note 32, at 326 (citing ANTHONY A. HOEKEMA, THE FOUR MAJOR CULTS 373-88 (1965)). Essential Mormon doctrines place the religion squarely within Hoekema's factors."

23 Am. Ind. L. Rev. at 290, note 34 [emphasis added].

THE ODD HISTORY OF MORMONISM AND REYNOLDS V. U.S.

The law review article goes on to detail the unorthodox history and heretical theology of the Mormon cult.

"[S]cholars note that courts heard few free exercise claims before Reynolds v. United States, which introduced the belief-conduct distinction into the Court's free exercise jurisprudence. 33 In Reynolds, the Supreme Court upheld a federal criminal law banning polygamy as applied to a Mormon. 34 Although polygamy is an ancient tradition practiced in patriarchal cultures, and enduring to modern times chiefly through the spread of Islam since A.D. 610, Christianity's doctrine of monogamous marriage banished polygamy from Western law and practice. 35 The Mormon religion, however, revived polygamy as an arguably central tenet of their religious practice by the time Reynolds was decided in 1878."

"The cult's founder, Joseph Smith, claimed to have received an uncorroborated visit from the angel Moroni on September 21, 1823. Moroni allegedly tipped Smith to a series of golden plates hidden on a New York hillside containing the story of God's work among the ancient indigenous Americans. 36 The golden plates, which unfortunately for scholars were repossessed by Moroni after Smith finished translating them into English, revealed the spectacular story of two elaborate, but lost civilizations which existed on the North American continent. 37 Smith was inspired to found the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830, and publish his translation of the golden plates as the Book of Mormon in the same year. 38 Due in no small part to Smith's incredible claims that he received revelations from God as a modern-day prophet and apostle, including the announcement that all Christian sects were in complete apostasy, Smith's group was not well-received in his home town of Palmyra, New York. "

"Nor was the group free from opposition at subsequent settlements in Kirkland, Ohio and Jackson County, Missouri. 39 Smith's problems were compounded by a July 12, 1843, revelation that he claimed to receive at the Mormon's new Nauvoo, Illinois settlement. Smith determined that reviving Old Testament style polygamy was God's will for members in the "Holy Order" of church leaders. This caused an intra-Mormon conflict, culminating with the arson of an anti-Mormon newspaper allegedly committed by Joseph Smith and his brother Hyram Smith. A mob murdered Joseph Smith during a shoot-out at the Carthage, Illinois jail on June 7, 1844. 40"

"Brigham Young regrouped and removed the majority of Smith's followers in 1847 to the Great Salt Lake. Young's group became the nucleus of Utah Territory, which was formed through the Compromise of 1850. 41"

"Although Utah Territory formally outlawed polygamy, the controversy did not end with the Mormons' relocation. Smith's polygamy revelation remained part of Mormon doctrine and practice at the time of Reynolds. 42 Contrary to the Christian teaching that marriage is a temporal institution, 43 [Matthew 22:30 (quoting Jesus) ("For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.").] Mormonism teaches a unique form of polytheism that includes "celestial marriage." The highest aspiration of an obedient Mormon adherent is to have their marriage "eternally sealed" on earth in a Mormon temple, meeting one of the requirements for progression to godhood. 44 For a believer in the Mormon system who is working his way to the third and highest level of the afterlife, these earth-originated celestial marriages are essential in that each god and his family will receive his own planet to populate and rule. 45 Because spiritual procreation can only occur through physical sexual union, a larger number of celestial wives facilitates the planet population process. Thus, preventing a Mormon from having multiple wives significantly compromised his eternal religious free exercise rights. 46"

"The Reynolds Court recognized the unique place polygamy had in the Utah/Mormon community. A number of jurors were excluded at the trial court level because of their belief in the principle, not withstanding the federal and Utah laws to the contrary. 47 The Court also noted that the Mormon Church taught polygamy as a duty for all male church members. 48 However, the Court did not allow a religious objector's exception to criminal laws against "overt acts." 49 The Court reasoned that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." 50 Although the Reynolds belief-conduct distinction was abandoned in later First Amendment cases, such as Cantwell v. Connecticut, 51 Reynolds stands as the landmark case establishing that the Free Exercise clause does not require religious exemptions from facially neutral laws of general applicability. 52" Id. at 290-294 [footnotes omitted, emphasis added]

COULD AL SHARPTON BE RIGHT? [EVEN IF BY ACCIDENT?]

Although the Mormons have officially abandoned polygamy in the century since Reynolds, it’s clear that their faith has little relationship to orthodox Christianity.

Rev. Sharpton’s clarification drastically understates the difference! If Romney is a serious, practicing Mormon, then he must believe that he is progressing towards being "a god" himself! That’s certainly a different conception of the Divine than any "mainstream" monotheistic religion!

It is a considerable leap to suggest that the differences in theology faced by John F. Kennedy in 1960 are even in the same league with the immense gulf between traditional, orthodox forms of Christianty and the Mormon cult. While Catholics, Protestants and those in the Free Church tradition hold different views on issues such as Papal authority and the exact formula for salvation, virtually all of these sects have similar views on the trinitarian nature of God and other historic doctrines of Christianity. None of these groups hold to the radical polythiesm inherent in Mormon doctrine. None of them teach that humans can (and should aspire to) become "gods" themselves. None of these "mainstream" sects embody virtually every cult element identifed by Hoekema, as does the Mormon religion.

BUT IS ACKNOWLEDGING THIS BIGOTRY?

It’s a sad day in America when debating doctrines of theology is reduced to mindless, irrelevant name-calling. Yet Mitt Romney’s failure to engage the issues implicated on objective terms and his resort to the "bigot" label is precisely that. It’s a punt and a gutless dodge, plain and simple.

Obviously, in a secular society, folks – including Mitt Romney -- can believe whatever nutty, cornball philosophy or theology they want. That’s the essence of freedom of thought. Moreover, Article IV, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

But individual voters are certainly free to evaluate the nature and effect that a candidate’s personal beliefs might have on the candidate’s tenure in office. It is myopic to believe that a candidate's world view has no bearing whatsoever on the candidate's morality, values, policies, prioities, responsiveness to crises, and ability to govern in a secularized and pluralistic world. A candidate's beliefs are a window into the the candidate's cognitive process and cultural background. Thus, it would be wholly foolhardy, if not impossible, to divorce consideration of these attributes from the electorial process.

More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise protect the right to debate and persuade others on all intellectual matters, including matters of religion. Obviously, if voters are free to debate and persuade, then they remain free to consider the results of such debates in their personal voting decisions.

To short-circuit all of this with a mindless incantation of "bigot" demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the free market of ideas. It is simply casting the "dirty bomb" of the bigotry charge in place of a meaningful engagement on the substance of the matters at hand. Such insubstantial name-calling in lieu of serious debate has increasingly tainted public discourse over matters of personal morality, ethics, values and beliefs in this age of "political correctness."

WHAT IS BIGOTRY AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO FAITH?

Certainly, an advocate can be so irrationally wedded to an opinion to the point of being unable to consider any evidence or reasoning to the contrary. When such opinions are held without any reasonable, objective justification, then a proper charge of bigotry will often lie. But to immediately reach for the sword of "bigotry" at the first hint of disagreement over matters of thought purposefully chills the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth. It inhibits the search for common ground by poisoning future discourse.

Of course, matters of faith have objective and subjective components. And as the skeptics accurately point out, no matter how historical, scholarly and reasoned one's faith in supernatural systems becomes, faith inherently involves at some level . . . well . . . FAITH -- a BELIEF in something. Obviously, to suggest that all "belief" is bigotry grossly devalues both concepts without justification.

Thus, the true tests of bigotry are: (1) whether the basis, reasonability and intellectual viability of the belief is outweighed by generally-accepted facts or universally-held values; (2) whether the conduct flowing from the belief lacks objective value for others or for one's own self-regulation; (3) whether the conduct flowing from the belief degrades social composition; (4) whether the the conduct flowing from the belief places others in a false light or at a disadvantage unreasonably related to the task, privileges or immunities at hand.

APPLICATION

Certainly, while Rev. Sharpton's comment may or may not pass muster under these tests, Gov. Romney's "boilerplate" reaction evokes no sense that he has made anything other than a pre-packaged and calculated ad hominem attack in reply. If Romney had honestly engaged Rev. Sharpton, he would have identfied the specific falacies in Rev. Sharpton's conclusions instead of plastering him with an over-used, if not throw-a-way pejorative label.

Of course, in the minds of some voters, a conservative Mormon (regardless of how bizarre and heretical his eschatological beliefs) might be a better national leader than a nominal Catholic, a self-centered, antinomian Baptist, or a secularized Methodist.

But Romney – if he’s a true leader -- must show the strength of character to be candid and truthful about his weird religious beliefs. He must not hide behind labels, slogans, deceptive rhetoric and the personal flaws of his critics.

HYBRIDS ARE GEEZER -WAGONS?

What says "oldster" better than a Mercury Grand Marquis?

It may be a hybrid.

According to a J.D. Power survey reported in the Automotive News (www.autonews.com), only two percent of hybrids go to owners who are under twenty-five years of age. Another twenty-six belong to "drivers"(Read: transportation appliance owners) in the coveted 25-44 demographic.

The remaining seventy-two percent are snapped up by geezers and sagging baby boomers. Twenty-nine percent of the "trendy" gas-electric heaps belong to folks between 45 and 54. Another twenty-four percent of owners are 55 and 64. A whopping nineteen percent of those who "throw the Reddy Kilowatt switch" are 65 or older!

These demographics are not surprising.

Hybrid ownership is a dodgy proposition from a purely economic standpoint. Absent fat tax incentives or a dramatic run-up in fuel prices, the payback period on hybrids is several years. And the great unknown looming over hybrid ownership is what happens when the $3,500-$5,000 battery pack "takes a dump" toward the apparent end of the vehicle’s life-span. While the market may yet develop a cost-effective fix, at present, battery replacement appears to be a huge cloud over long-term residual values.

In Europe, where greater hysteria over "climate change" combines with more reasonable emission regulations that allow for more market choices than in the U.S.A., turbo-diesels have thoroughly trounced hybrids in market share.

But more fundamentally, virtually no hybrid currently on the market (save perhaps the uber expensive Lexus models) project any sort of sporting or adventurous or luxurious image. In short, most hybrids have all the appeal of a girdle and support hose.

At the current juncture, hybrids are more of a political statement than a practical alternative.

While they are obviously the "dream machines" of the moment for the true believers in the "Green" religion and those "better-than-thou" sorts who continue to hang on to the anti-industrial, collectivist "I-know-what's-best-for-everyone" dreams of 1960s-style radicalism, they simply do not resonate with most ordinary Americans.

And among that elite group which actually enjoys automobility in its historic, sporting and diverse forms, hybrids remain both a curiosity and a harbinger of a depressing future.

CISCHKE HAS HER WORK CUT OUT FOR HER

Last month, Ford Motor Company crowned Sue Cischke as FoMoCo’s senior vice president of sustainability, environment and safety engineering. While CEO Alan Mulally’s announcement avoided sorts of hard target fuel economy numbers that haunted Bill Ford, he spewed the sort of corporate citizenship pap that enthralls the eco-faithful but makes the eyes of motoring enthusiasts glaze over:

"We are just at a really important time for all of us around the world . . . .We've finished the debate about whether the world has warmed up [although certainly not the debate on the anthrogenic contribution] … and we are now going to start on a very important time when we all -- all the citizens around the world -- get a chance to really decide what we all want to do about being stewards of the Earth." www.autonews.com

Just a few days later, Ford announced it was shuttering its historic Cleveland engine casting plant and delaying opening of the 3.5-liter Duratec V6 assembly line at the plant. (The 3.5, of course, is the "all-singing, all-dancing" engine-of-the-future that Ford’s spin-masters promised would position Ford to better meet its international horsepower challenges.)

Coincidence?

Probably. The scale-back of the 3.5 is officially because some new models have missed sales targets. But it could be another early warning sign that the Greens in the Glass House may yet prevail over those Total Performance diehards in the battle for the "One Ford" future.

Ford’s new Tree-Hugging Czar, however, has bigger marketing problems. Virtually all of the available low-CO2 gear demands higher sticker prices. But according to that same J.D. Power survey, only ten percent of new-vehicle buyers said they strongly agree with the statement: "I am willing to pay more for an environmentally friendly product."According to the Automotive News report, "Mini leads the list of vehicle brands whose buyers strongly endorsed the statement. Following Mini were, in order, Saab, Honda, Audi, Lexus, Scion, Toyota, Volvo, BMW and Subaru."

Notwithstanding all of Ford’s global citizen gibberish and its two true-hybrid SUVs, Ford (excluding Volvo) isn’t really a first-round draft pick for the fans of the "Green team."

Maybe if Cischke focuses Ford to play to its base with innovative combinations of high-performance, utility and fuel efficiency, she’ll be able to salve FoMoCo’s corporate conscience while moving enough metal to retain some semblance of market share.

Some quick fixes include:

1. Moving E-85 as a performance fuel by making all of Ford’s V8s and performance models flexi-fuel vehicles.

2. Increased use of high efficiency turbocharging and Twin-charging.

3. Expanded use of "no loss" efficiency technologies, such as cylinder deactivation, variable cam/valve timing and phasing, direct injection and variable-path intake manifolds.

4. Eliminating all remaining two-valve engines and promoting four-valve technology.

5. More mild hybrid starter-alternators.

Such technologies yield more bang-for-the-buck with lower losses in performance than simple engine downsizing or more expensive and radical hybrid solutions.

It is also foreseeable that some enthusiasts would eagerly embrace (at a premium price) a high-performance, high-efficiency mild hybrid, twin-charged, flexi-fuel V8 Mustang. An eco-supercar of this sort could also promote other cutting-edge efficiency technologies, such as variable compression ratio, John Coletti’s supercooler, and electronically-variable Atkinson/Miller/Otto-cycle cam timing.

At least such a "bold" halo technology car would potentially be more attractive to real automobilists (and more consistent with Ford’s historic DNA) than another "me-too," rolling-hair-shirt-guilt-trip-boredom-wagon like today’s soulless hybrids.