Sunday, May 27, 2007

Beckwith on Hewitt on Romney

This is for Dianonymous who thinks Mr. Beckwith is a "hunk". Maybe she'll vote for Romney for the same reason? Speaking of looks, Hugh looks like my dad. Well, I'm jealous of both of them for keeping their hair, which doesn't seem fair at all in my dad's case since I'm a blood relative of his.

Here's F.B.'s review. I have the book; haven't read it yet. Liked this part of the review, where he talks about how

...Hewitt addresses what I call the Creedal Mistake.

This mistake occurs when a Christian citizen believes that the planks of his creed are the best standard by which to judge the suitability of a political candidate. For example, suppose a Presbyterian votes for one of Romney’s primary opponents solely on the basis of the governor’s rejection of the Nicene Creed. An elder who did this would not truly understand the purpose of creeds: to provide church members and the world at large a summary of beliefs that one must embrace in order to be considered an orthodox member of that body. Creeds are not meant to measure the qualifications of a political candidate in a liberal democracy. Not only does the formulation of Christendom’s most important creeds predate the existence of liberal democracies, their subject matter bears no relation to assessing those attributes that we consider essential to the leadership of a political regime. In practice, most Christians already fully grasp this truth.

He uses the example of Carter and Reagan to hammer this home. He goes on to bemoan Hewitt's negligence in dealing with Kennedy's "concession" back during his run. This may be due to the fact that Hewitt left the Catholic Church for Evangelical Protestantism and is personally comfortable with what Kennedy did.

Many Protestant Christians at the time were concerned that Kennedy’s commitment as a Catholic to the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium on a variety of social, moral, and political issues would serve as his guide for U.S. domestic and foreign policy. In order to assuage Protestant fears, on September 12, 1960, Kennedy addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association and assured the attendees that nothing of his Catholic faith would play any role in his judgments as occupant of the White House.

Kennedy’s speech reads like a complete acquiescence to American mainline Protestant notions of privatized faith and anti-clericalism, as well as its stereotypical, outdated, and uncharitable ideas about the Catholic hierarchy and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Kennedy could have argued that his Catholicism informs him of certain theological and moral doctrines that will make him a thoughtful and principled president. He could have consulted and mined from the works of Catholic scholars who were able defenders of liberal democracy and the natural law that grounds it. But he did not. Kennedy’s speech was a terrible concession. For it played to his audience’s anti-Catholic prejudices while saying that his religious beliefs are so trivial that he would govern exactly the same if they were absent.

I'm just speculating, of course. I really like to listen to Hugh Hewitt, but he does irritate me with what I call his "denominational indifference" regarding Catholicism. He made a big deal about going to an Easter Vigil Mass and his Presbyterian Easter service and how he was getting the "best of both worlds", you know, the neat-o, quaint, ancient Catholic liturgy plus the updated, superior music and singing of the nice, happy Protestants. As you can tell, I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist.

Well, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir blows us all away music-wise -- what does that prove?

7 comments:

  1. LOL, Pauli! Well, I also think Michael Jordan is a hunk, and he's as bald as an onion. :)

    Re Mormonism: Have you ever read the book Separated Brethen by William Whalen? It's really dated, alas--I wish someone would do an updated edition. But boy, is it fascinating, especially WRT our homegrown American kook-cults, such as Mormonism. You can't make this stuff up!

    In a weird kind of way, that's what I lopve about America. We even cook up our own religions. And, boy, are they different.

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  2. i saw the show about mormons on pbs, which turned out to be very pro-mormon. i have to say i have a bit of mormon envy -- many of them seem pretty together, even while they spout this nonsense about there being a living prophet here, right now, in salt lake city (i asked the 2 kids at my door this year "what's his name?", answer: Gordon Hinkley -- my reaction was sort of "hey, who knew?" [what else can one say and still be polite?])there is also an interesting strain of hyper excellence in young mormons playing classical music -- there also an emphasis on achievement that is also very "american".

    speaking of achievement, romney is just scary. 5 sons are also all frighteningly smooth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I probably line up on as many or more issues with Mormons than I do with, say, Methodists. And how many Methodists give a hoot in hell about the Council of Nicaea anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, my 14-year-old son says Mormons have the most hotties. OK, that's what he said a few months ago. Now he's into a more ethnic look.

    Have y'all ever seen the PBS special that gets shown every Thanksgiving (or used to, anhyway)? I believe it features the student choir at Brigham Young University. They do this one song--"Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing"--that will give you goosebumps on your goosebumps.

    But sorry, I still think the religion itself is really, really bizarre. Not that I would ever refuse to vote for a Mormon just because he's Mormon. That's just silly; it wouldn't cross my mind. If he were a satanist, yeah, I'd hesitate to vote for him. (Who wants some perverted creep in elected office?) But a Mormon--no prob. They may believe weird stuff, but they're upstanding citizens with solid family values and all that jazz.

    BTW--found out that Separated Brethen has been updated, as of 2002. Highly recommended; it's a fascinating read, and Whalen is eminently fair.

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  5. The thing that impresses me about Mormons is that they don't really seem to care that much about how others view them. They're constantly belittled but they don't complain. It's kind of nice that they have that much confidence in their faith and lifestyle, which I guess is a must when your belief system is that off kilter (sorry.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. The more I consider the possibility of being given the choice to support either Romney's run for the GOP nomination or the general election, the less inclined I am to support him because it would add further legitimacy to the Mormon religion. Between their religious texts and their theological beliefs, Mormonism is not Christian in any meaningful sense, which would be fine if it weren't for the duplicity in that church's attempt to portray itself as just another Protestant denomination.

    Between their lovely choir and polite congregants, and between demographics and the expediency of alliances with politically conservative Evangelicals, their joining the mainstream of American religion may be inevitable, but that doesn't mean I must support the inevitable by supporting a Mormon's candidacy for President.

    This is dreadfully intolerant of me, I know, but it is what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I could care less about his Mormon religion. What bothers me about Gov. Romney is what he had to do in order to get elected in Massachussetts. He did it by trying to show he was as liberal as Ted Kennedy. It was very much like President John Kennedy going to West Virginia. In order to obtain West Virginia as he did in 1960; Kennedy pandered to some of the biggest Anti-Catholic bigots known. Not a "Profile in Courage."

    ReplyDelete