Turning The Church Into A Partisan Tool
This bugs me. I don’t want people dragging my church into politics…even if the people trying to do it are deans at BYU, general authorities, or other famous/connected Mormons. The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints is not an arm of any political campaign even if the candidate is LDS.
I was inclined to support Romney before hearing about this. The idea that his campaign is trying to get the church involved in organizing a fundraising/campaign network for them really bugs me even if I’m not that surprised. The idea that there may be church leaders or employees attempting to facilitate this crap is quite a shock in light of the church’s constant protestations of its political neutrality. It is also much more disappointing since members of the church should be able to expect much better from them.
(Hat Tip SLCSpin)
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Don’t be so quick to believe every negative thing published about the church, or any other organization, for that matter. Some have already given this story a thorough fisking. See the Oct. 20 Utah Policy Daily for details.
Comment by Reach Upward — October 20, 2006 @ 7:53 am
As the DesNews points out today, there is also the risk of losing their non-profit status. Looks like the Church is doing the right thing now and distancing themselves from the organizing team.
I have mixed feelings. Why is the LDS church being singled out when all those fundie pastors and churches back east are immersed up to their necks in politics? Let’s level the playing field.
On the other hand, I believe separation of church and state is a bedrock founding principle. But then, I felt the same way about habeas corpus, when it existed.
Comment by Part of the Plan — October 20, 2006 @ 8:32 am
I would think it wise for an LDS member running for president not to drag his religious beliefs into public eye, when many of those beliefs are not shared by the majority.
He will lose the vote of many, and would gain the vote of only a few LDS members who didn’t know he was running anyway.
Considering the source, I believe the story to be at most 30% true. I used to work in the newspaper industry, and can spot a group of quotes and nuances pieced together in an attempt at a story pretty well. That’s exactly what this looks like to me.
Comment by Cody — October 20, 2006 @ 10:40 am
“…we reaffirm the position of neutrality taken by the Church, and affirm the long-standing policy that no member occupying an official position in any organization of the Church is authorized to speak in behalf of the Church concerning the Church’s stand on political issues.”
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-24209,00.html
Comment by Cody — October 20, 2006 @ 10:49 am
I’m personally holding off any judgments on this story. I would not be surprised if the Boston Globe story is accurate, nor if the Church’s protestations are honest. At this point, it remains to be seen which to believe.
If the news is true, I would be very disappointed and concerned. The LDS Church should avoid such blatant political dabbling (their involvement in the marriage amendment issue was bad enough). It would be ethically unbecoming, as well as fiscally disastrous (I’m certain their tax-exempt status would be threatened).
I seem to recall in my study of history that many in mainstream Christian America were very concerned when Kennedy ran for President, worried that he would be a puppet for the Vatican. Such fears were unfounded. On the other hand, if The Boston Globe’s allegation is true, then America would have a very valid reason to wonder about Romney’s autonomy.
Until the time of the LDS legend in which “The Constitution hangs by a thread,” (a situation which Conservatives seem hellbent on bringing to pass) I’d prefer that the Church avoid political meddling, and that we within the Church seek to elect the most qualified candidate, irrespective of religious affiliation.
Comment by Derek — October 20, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
The Article VI blog has already done a good job of exposing the inaccuracies presented in this article. Unfortunatly, staking out the Church Office Building, isn’t an effective way to get the scoop on what happens behind it’s doors. You can believe the Church when it say’s it doesn’t support any candidate, and you can be sure that Romney isn’t dumb enough to imply that he has the Church’s endorsement.
Comment by Tyler Farrer — October 21, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Why can we believe the Church when it says it doesn’t support any candidate? Are you implying that we should believe just because they are “The Church?” I’ll believe them if the facts support their claim (which they may well do), but not for any other reason.
Comment by Derek — October 22, 2006 @ 8:56 pm