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to American mainline Protestant notions of privatized faith and anti-clericalism, as well as its stereotypical, outdated, and uncharitable ideas about the Catholic hierarchy and the teachings of the Catholic Church.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?