Sunday, November 26, 2006

Harry Reid

I guess this is a fact that more politically-minded people probably know - but Harry Reid, new Senate Majority Leader in January, is also a Mormon. It's interesting that his religion is not nearly the issue that Mitt Romney's is.


  1. "It's interesting that his religion is not nearly the issue that Mitt Romney's is."

    Interesting in the sense of why it's utterly unsurprisiging.

    Overwhelmingly, the positition of Senate Majority Leader holds significant political power in the US system, but very little popular imagery, and that's pretty much the whole thing.

    The President is an image of national significance and imagery and representation in numerous ways; the Senate Majority Leader, well, quick, name the current Republican again.

    It's just that simple. Mitt Romney, Mormon, was a minor story; Mitt Romney, could he be president, isn't.

    And that's the whole and only point.

    (How Romney will be considered is the interest question, and offhand it looks as if enough religious Christians will be openmineded enough to put Romney in the positition to lose to the stricter-minders, but we'll see.

  2. What do you think of Sullivan's discussion of Romney's Mormonism?

    I guess you're right about Reid - the Senate Majority Leader is not exactly a household word. But I have been hearing about Romney's Mormonism for a long time - perhaps I've been aware of it since I'm from Massachusetts.

  3. Well I think part of the issue is that people fear the religious right more than the religious left.

    Also if a persons faith is not "in the mainstream" and is apart of the religious right and is in a liberal state the contrasts are even more apparent.

    Every revolutionary idea was once not in the mainstream. Christianity was certainly not in the mainstream for the first 300 years of its existence yet it became excepted. The protestant reformation was attacked and thought of as radicals apostates how is that any different than the Mormons restoration of the gospel. The problem is not one of theology or doctrine but one of familiarity.

  4. PoliBlog had a really interesting discussion of Romney and the likely evangelical response to his Mormonism.

  5. It's not a mystery only because he 1) keeps it low key and 2) he's not going to be running the country. Romney will inherit the same unConstitutional authority Bush has granted himself and that's a risk. The church teaches "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." By prophet, they mean the head of the church. People that go against or question church teachings are, more often than not, excommunicated. A church that does not want its people to think independently and that wants unquestioning obedience is a danger to have in authority in this or any country (think Taliban). They may play the Christian game, but their definitions are completely different than mainstream Christianity. I'd be more likely to vote for Harry Reid who has shown his willingness to think independently than for anyone else in the church. And, don't think for a minute the church isn't funneling millions of dollars to Romney's campaign - they own so many corporations (their church presidency each is also president of a church owned corporation) that they can have those corporations make donations and still look innocent. Or they call their wealthiest members and "suggest" a political donation. This is a dangerous organization despite their sugar-coating. Don't trust them. And, yes, I was a member and, yes, I lived in Utah 17 years, and I went through the DC temple. I'm not an outsider with no knowledge.