|
Posted on 06/28/2010 2:39:53 PM PDT by Colofornian
Many parallels can be drawn from the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney and the seating of Sen. Reed Smoot in Congress at the beginning of the 20th century by looking at ways the media reported on the men and how they were perceived by the public at large.
In a paper published in May issue of The Journal of Media and Religion, Sherry Baker, with the BYU Department of Communications, and the MMO examine the interplay between the LDS Church, the media, and other factors in society that influence public perceptions about Mormons and the church.
Among other things, the paper compares the congressional hearings to seat Reed Smoot at beginning of the 20th century and the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. Ironically, Smoot was seated in Congress 100 years to the month before Romney announced his campaign.
"When Reed Smoot, a successful 41-year-old businessman and leader in the LDS Church, was chosen to represent the state of Utah in the United States Senate, he entered 'a firestorm of angry protests' against his seating as a senator. The nationwide opposition to Smoot, which was 'essentially a Protestant endeavor,' resulted in the Senate referring Smoot's case to a committee to 'consider the suitability' of his membership in that body. 'The doctrines and practices (of the LDS Church) — not Smoot — emerged as the real focus of the hearing.' The hearings were of vast public interest."
"During the time, Smoot himself made a speech about religion on the Senate floor in 1907, far predating similar speeches by John F. Kennedy (1960) and Mitt Romney (2007). He stated that he owed 'no allegiance to any church or other organization which in any way interferes with my supreme allegiance in civil affairs to my country …' The final Senate vote on the resolution to unseat Smoot (taken on February 20, 1907) went down to defeat, 42–28. Reed Smoot went on to serve in the Senate for 30 years."
By comparison, the paper explains this about Romney: "Mitt Romney officially announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency on Feb. 13, 2007 (100 years after the seating of Reed Smoot in February 1907). Romney already had been a high-profile governor of Massachusetts and was credited as the white knight who helped rescue the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games from an ethics scandal and financial disarray. As a successful Boston businessman, Romney had made a career of turning struggling companies into profitable enterprises. With made-for-TV looks at age 61, Romney appeared every bit presidential material. But 'from the day he entered the race … Romney's affiliation with the Mormon church dominated his media image more than anything else ( according to research from the Pew Forum.)"
The paper then documents what was nearly an obsession by the media with Romney's religion and the latent anti-Mormonism in the nation. The amount of media attention focused on Romney's faith is probably without rival in recent elections. In fact, faith was almost a non-factor during the presidential run of Mitt's father, George.
The paper says this about the younger Romney: "For many, the combination of Mormonism and Romney's 'flip-flops' on many hot-button issues gave reason to oppose him. Conservative activist Brian Camenker's report on Romney's shifting positions gave ammunition to conservatives to withdraw support from Romney. Vanderbilt University researchers found Romney's flip-flopper label was an easy cover for anti-Mormonism. In the end, it was the rise of Huckabee and the political primaries in the evangelical-dominated South that derailed Romney's bid for the presidency. For many, Romney's run represented a misguided attempt to curry the favor of evangelicals."
The paper, titled "Mitt Romney's Religion: A Five Factor Model for Analysis of Media Representation of Mormon Identity," says the five factors of media, the beliefs and position of Mormons themselves, the reactions and actions of other religious groups, the actions of secular or nonreligious groups and political and governmental factors should be considered as a model for study of media representation of Mormon identity.
(As if Romney's "flip-flops" was no reason to oppose him! Give me a break. Even those people having no clue about Mormonism had plenty reasons to oppose Romney minus any "cover" -- as this column by a Mormon columnist alleges)
From the column: ...with the BYU Department of Communications, and the MMO examine the interplay between the LDS Church, the media, and other factors in society that influence public perceptions about Mormons and the church...The paper, titled "Mitt Romney's Religion: A Five Factor Model for Analysis of Media Representation of Mormon Identity," says the five factors of media, the beliefs and position of Mormons themselves, the reactions and actions of other religious groups...
Well, that's good. This Mormon columnist finally gets around at the end of his column in conceding that one of the concerns about Romney is "the beliefs and position of Mormons themselves...
From the column: ...[Smoot] entered 'a firestorm of angry protests' against his seating as a senator. The nationwide opposition to Smoot, which was 'essentially a Protestant endeavor,' resulted in the Senate referring Smoot's case to a committee to 'consider the suitability' of his membership in that body. 'The doctrines and practices (of the LDS Church) — not Smoot — emerged as the real focus of the hearing.' The hearings were of vast public interest."
Wow! Just wow! Yes, the Protestants led the charge, but they weren't alone [women's groups were quite aloud in opposing Smoot]. And the key "wow" here is the reason these women's groups were opposed to Smoot was because polygamy was still being privately done by Mormons in the early 1900s. So for this columnist to write a column about Sen. Smoot -- and never even mention the word "polygamy" is quite a hoot! (Hey, that rhymes with Smoot...we'll call this "Campbell's Smoot Hoot!")
"What was called a 'tidal wave' of letters was sent to Congress asking that the Utah senator be barred from their councils. Protestant church groups and women's organizations such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union and National Congress of Mothers were especially aroused. They were not alone. Ray Stannard Baker, admiring the Saints in other regards, said Mormon polygamy was so common that leaders in Salt Lake City could take a street car in any direction and arrive home. The primary objection against Smoot was that, as an apostle, he was a member of Mormonism's highest governing body, and under its leadership polygamy and unlawful cohabitation were yet approved and practiced. Complaints of this nature were sent to Washington, D.C., in such volume that it was estimated it would take a half-dozen men to carry the documents to the senate chamber..." (Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage by B. Carmon Hardy Univ. of IL Press 1992 p. 251)
Mormonism has no bearing on why I dislike the man. I could care less whether he was a Mormon. What I care about is the fact that this man has flip-flopped on virtually every core issue in America to cater to his intended audiences. To win in Mass he was a pro-abort, pro government health care, pro gun, and pro-gay candidate. To win nationally he is the exact opposite. Mitt is a republican Bill Clinton or John Edwards minus the (known) sex addiction. You can’t trust a word he says.
If Romney is the nominee the msm will have his religion front and center, but not until after the nomination is awarded. Every possile lie will be told, and we will have a wispering campaign not seen since 1960.
Given that Romney has been on most sides of most issues...let’s hope the GOP avoides all this by nominating a conservative. At least we might have a campaign in which issues are discussed.
Desperate Housewives?
“The amount of media attention focused on Romney’s faith is probably without rival in recent elections.”
I don’t think so. During the very same period, Obama’s personal pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, made “faith”, Obama’s, a very major public and media question.
That said, I will admit there was a difference, in two ways.
For Obama, once he threw Reverend Wright under the bus, the media helped Obama get the issue off of front and center (even though it was an admission of a lie; either Obama had lied about his support for Reverend Wright for 20 years, or he was lying that his disavowal of Reverend Wright now was genuine, because, given the facts, it could only be one or the other).
In Romney’s case, the “Mormon” issue did get media attention, but, in all truthfulness, it continued in a both a stronger and more silent (unspoken) manner, in the GOP primaries; than did the Reverend Wright issue for Obama.
Full disclosure: do not take my comments as a sign of support for Romney; that is not and was not ever the case. Though I am a Christian, my opposition to him is based on some of the policy positions he takes, and my sense of his primary principles being political ambition more than any conservatism that may come across in anything he says or does.
At the same time, I know, from this forum alone, such opposition is not enough in the minds of some, some who do primarily oppose Romney for his religion. Regardless of that prejudice, a prejudice I do not take to the political arena, knowing that prejudice is active does not make me change my own views of him. It’s just the way it is.
And the opposition research will start right here on FR...magritte
|
The man is a flipping liberal. If he wants to run for president he needs to run on the democrat ticket.
Now why does this columnist even begin to think you can separate the two?
#1 A 2006 Rasmussen poll shows: Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats.
#2 If Obama came out and admitted he thought he was the new Messiah, that “religious belief” is supposed to be “irrelevant” to voters? ‘Cause this Mormon columnist says so? And yet Romney, if he’s a temple Mormon, believes he’ll be a “god” someday…and we’re supposed to 100% ignore that?
#3, Campbell engages in what all too many Mormons do: Historical revisionism. They shift the dynamics of the times. What was going on during the Reed Smoot Senate hearings in the 1900s? Well, one of the things that took place was that the Lds “prophet” of the times – Joseph F. Smith (nephew to Joseph Smith) wholly embarrassed the church:
President Joseph F. Smith's "testimony was one of the most damaging of the entire investigation. It must have been difficult for Senator Smoot, who with his wife sat at the same table with Smith, to hear his leader plead, on the one hand, an incredible ignorance concerning the polygamous activities of Smoot’s fellow apostles, while, on the other, admitting to having cohabitated with and fathered children with all five of his own wives since 1890. After saying the Manifesto was divinely received and that it comprehended continued cohabitation with polygamous wives, Smith had to admit he was living in defiance of not only secular law but the revelations of deity." (pp. Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage by B. Carmon Hardy Univ. of IL Press 1992, 252-253)
According to author Hardy, Smith’s testimony “increased hostility toward himself, Smoot, and Mormonism. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union described his admissions as a ‘brazen stand,’ justifying a continuation of the ‘anti-Polygamy Crusade.’ Nels Lars Nelson, in Provo, Utah, admitted that Smith’s testimony left ‘the whole country agog with astonishment and curiosity.’…Another faithful young Mormon, George Q. Morris, said Smith’s presentation left Mormonism never so much disliked in its history.” (p. 253)
Even Smoot was extremely uncomfortable with the Utah Mormon leadership not able to plug new plural unions from taking place well after the 1890 “Manifesto” that was supposed to halt it:
"Senator Smoot recorded in his diary that [Lds President] Smith simply did not understand how strongly Americans felt about polygamy. He concluded: 'It is evident no action against the persons taking polygamist wives before 1904 will be taken. If there is another investigation I do not know how [our] present position will be justified...We are in a bad position for an examination or investigation.'" (Hardy, p. 294, citing Smoot diaries, April 2, 1911)
But, of course, this Lds columnist gives absolutely NO mention to polygamy in this column; and short shrift to which beliefs provoke Americans – barely mentioning at the end of his column one reason why Lds have such a negative public persona: …the beliefs and position of Mormons themselves…
Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping socialist bum!
Some people just don't get the TEA Parties. RINO Romney is just more of the same. Dump him!
I oppose Romney because of his ultra liberalism but it’s equally ok to oppose any politician dumb enough to swallow mormonism. It is a cult, that for most of its existence opposed Christianity and now seeks to “blend in” and say, hey we’re Christian too!
I wouldn’t vote for any other cultist either - JWs, Scientologists mooselimbs whatever.
Where’s the Mormon lady who told me it is unconstitutional to consider the candidate’s religion? I’d name and ping her but she would want me to look up the post and provide the link where she said it - it’s not worth the effort.
Every possile lie will be told,
- - - - - -
The MSM doesn’t need to lie about Mormonism, the truth is bad enough.
been there, done that, got the hell out.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
No mention that the “firestorm of angry protests’ against his seating as a senator” was about polygamy and Smoot’s many wives...
more than TEN years after the 1890 “proclamation”
Awesome.
*PING*
… or any politician so immersed in a way of life (Mormonism) - brainwashed into believing the righteous of a founder - that he wouldn't see the problem with foundational doctrine that advocates the overthrow of US government.
Mitt's daddy George even took the temple Oath of Vengeance: "You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."
I can just see George Romney bouncing sweet baby Mitt on his knee, teaching him to pray and never cease praying that Almighty God would avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation. Yup those are the heartwarming moments of mormon youth.
Party ownership of the print media
made it easy to manipulate public opinion,
and the film and radio carried the process further.
|
....... The Ministry of Truth, Winston's place of work, contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below.
The Ministry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further. The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels - with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child's spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary. Winston worked in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT (a single branch of the Ministry of Truth) editing and writing for The Times. He dictated into a machine called a speakwrite. Winston would receive articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, in Newspeak, rectify. If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston's job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. When his day's work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles. He dialed 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to rectify. In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages; to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and on the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building. As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames. What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. In the cubicle next to him the little woman with sandy hair toiled day in day out, simply at tracking down and deleting from the Press the names of people who had been vaporized and were therefore considered never to have existed. And this hall, with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one-sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department. Beyond, above, below, were other swarms of workers engaged in an unimaginable multitude of jobs. There were huge printing-shops and their sub editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs. There was the tele-programmes section with its engineers, its producers and its teams of actors specially chosen for their skill in imitating voices; clerks whose job was simply to draw up lists of books and periodicals which were due for recall; vast repositories where the corrected documents were stored; and the hidden furnaces where the original copies were destroyed. And somewhere or other, quite anonymous, there were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence. |
What percentage is SOME?
I'd like to see SOME data that's been posted on FR that shows that the poster opposed Ronmey FOR HIS RELIGION ALONE.
I 'oppose' his religion because it is a major heresy as defined BIBLICALLY.
I 'oppose' Romney because he is NOT a CONSERVATIVE; but tries to PORTRAY himself as one.
Whoot!!
There it IS!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
