BlogWatch: Maureen and Moroni

This Sunday Maureen Dowd stepped out of her usual role of irritating Democratic regulars and decided to take on Republican front-runner Mitt Romney and Mormonism. Mitt of course brought this on himself by giving a speech defending his faith while reaching out to other denominations as well. Dowd, a lace Irish Catholic, exposed her naiveté about Mormonism in a much debated anecdote from her youth, whenever that may have ended, and went to her rolodex for some quotes.

I called Mr. Krakauer — who also wrote the best sellers “Into Thin Air” and “Into the Wild” — to get his opinion of Mitt’s religion speech.

And this is where the blogging community chimed in. Concurring Opinion damns Krakauer with faint praise:

Not that there's anything wrong with Krakauer. Into Thin Air -- Krakauer's bestseller about the fatal Mount Everest climb -- was a great read. And why wouldn't it be? Krakauer has decades of experience as an outdoors writer, he's got an undergraduate degree in environmental studies, and he's written prior, well-received books about survival in the outdoors.

Also, he wrote one book about Mormonism, Under the Banner of Heaven -- and as we now know, Maureen Dowd read that book.

It seems that maybe mountain climbing and religion are mutually exclusive. They go on to suggest many other less inflammatory books that may be better sources on contemporary Mormon thought and culture. Some about Mormons that aren’t murderous child-abusing splinter-sect polygamists. As I am sure most Mormons aren't. No more than most Catholic priests are closeted pedophiles, but that is what makes headlines.

Riehl World goes a little further in questioning Krakauer’s objectivity by quoting the NYTROB:

Yeah, he's the guy I'd called if I wanted an objective opinion, ... or, perhaps not.

He usually devotes himself to mountain climbing and seems to have a taste for the outlandish, extreme, criminal, or outrageous in whatever he approaches.

In collecting evidence, Mr. Krakauer ventures out to a lunatic fringe of polygamous self-appointed prophets, where the Mormons and the Martians are almost interchangeable.

... this book provides more voyeuristic astonishment than curiosity or understanding.

Using Krakauer as an expert on Mormonism is a little akin to getting Richard Dawkins to discuss the anti-Christian themes in The Golden Compass. While nothing she cites about LDS is false (except perhaps being a few decades behind the times on holy underwear styles), it definitely exhibits bias. A bias that On Life and Lybberty thinks is over the line:

New York Times columnist Maureen Down wrote a hateful, offensive, and untruthful article about the Mormon Church yesterday (Sunday, Dec. 9th). In it, she describes Church leaders as "authoritarian", asserts that the Church today does not "grant[] women and blacks equal status", and declares that Joseph Smith was a "lusty, charismatic Prospero." (Prospero, in case you are not aware, is a character in Shakespeare's The Tempest that uses sorcery to control the play's other characters.)

The Prospero explanation is dangerously close to working my side of the street, but based on the portrayal of Joseph Smith in practicing Mormon Orson Scott Card’s novel Saints, it seems understated. Mormon church history is full of characters that easily qualify as colorful, but the Lybberty folks take offense and go on to call for her termination.

Ms. Dowd's column falls far below the standards of professional journalism. She is loose with the facts. Her disdain for Mormons is apparent. You may recall that radio talk-show host Don Imus was forced to publicly apologize and leave his job for calling the women of the Rutgers basketball team "nappy-headed hoes." Ms. Dowd's comments were equally offensive to Mormons. I believe that she, like Don Imus, should apologize and lose her job.

I’m not sure what slur to Mormons you would have to evoke to equal “nappy-headed ho”, but if you want to get Dowd fired for being deliberately provocative, the line forms to the left. And to the right.

Swift Templing MoDo

Glenn (sorry for the typo - Mo) Reynolds of Instapundit takes issue with Maureen Dowd's description of her being "kid" seeing the DC Mormon Temple from the beltway. Her description:

When I was a kid, we used to drive on the Beltway past the big Mormon temple outside Washington. The spires rose up like a white Oz, and some wag had spray-painted the message on a bridge beneath: “Surrender Dorothy!”

It did seem like an alien world, an impression that was enhanced when we took a tour of the temple and saw all the women wearing white outfits and light pink lipstick.

And Reynold's reaction:

But if you're imagining Dowd as a pigtailed six-year-old in the back of the family station wagon, think again. The temple was finished in 1974. Maureen Dowd was born in 1952. So she was a "kid" who was old enough to vote and drink. (According to this source, the graffiti first appeared in 1973, when Dowd would have been 21.)

Gateway Pundit claims that her seeing the inside of the Temple is false.

This is complete and total B.S.

Once a Temple is dedicated, only those with valid Temple Recommends can enter. Even LDS Members cannot enter unless they hold a Temple Recommend from their Bishop. And you would never see a woman in her Temple clothes outside the Temple. And no one says pink lipstick or any other shade. That is just plain ignorant as are all her remarks.

This Dowd woman is a liar in more ways than one.

Let's review the timeline:

Maureen Dowd born: 14 January 1952

And from the official LDS website:

Groundbreaking and Site Dedication: 7 December 1968 by Hugh B. Brown
Public Open House: 17 September–2 November 1974
Dedication: 19–22 November 1974 by Spencer W. Kimball

She would have been sixteen going on seventeen when it began construction and would have risen to its skyline imposing height during her high school and college years. She would have been twenty-two when the public open house occurred. And there was only a six week window when she could have ever toured the temple at all. This was a huge event in the DC area and I know people that took the tour. Allegedly all the carpet was removed and replaced after the hoi polloi were shooed out. So she could not have seen the temple insides after that.

If George Bush can excuse cocaine abuse in his thirties as "youthful indiscretions", Dowd can truthfully claim to have seen the temple as a "kid".

Once again, a little research refutes some mudslinging. Really wingnuts, find something more substantial to gig her on.

Update (10:30 am EST): Kathryn Jean Lopez of the notoriously liberal National Review Online takes my stance and says:

With so much to give Maureen Dowd grief about, this isn't one to harp on.

It seems the LDS Temple is a popular place for college kids to go "parking".

Holy Underwear

Mitt’s No J.F.K.
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: December 9, 2007

Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.
-Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle
October 5, 1988

Mitt Romney makes Maureen Dowd recall her Irish Catholic youth.

When I was a kid, we used to drive on the Beltway past the big Mormon temple outside Washington. The spires rose up like a white Oz, and some wag had spray-painted the message on a bridge beneath: “Surrender Dorothy!”

Which is what the Wicked Witch wrote in the sky in The Wizard of Oz. This then leads her to flash on some of the nuttier Mormon rituals.

Now in addition to asking candidates about boxers or briefs, we have reporters asking Mitt Romney if he wears The Garment, the sacred one-piece, knee-length underwear with Mormon markings and strict disposal rules.

“I’ll just say those sorts of things I’ll keep private,” he told The Atlantic.

Which shows that Romney has more discretion than Bill Clinton. He also didn’t address what he thought of thongs on interns. But Dowd sees a bigger non-underwear related issue:

The problem with Mitt is not his religion; it is his overeager policy shape-shifting. He did not give a brave speech, but a pandering one. Disguised as a courageous, Kennedyesque statement of principle, the talk was really just an attempt to compete with the evolution-disdaining, religion-baiting Huckabee and get Baptists to concede that Mormons are Christians.

John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic president, gave a speech decrying religious tests for public office.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

Compare that soaring rhetoric with the words from Romney earlier this week:

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

He can’t even steal material well. Mitt Romney is no Joe Biden either. But he doesn’t stop there. He insists of going further:

No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

He then rattles on about nativity scenes and abortions. Dowd rightly figures out that Romney is a little unclear on the whole church/state separation thing.

The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial.

And despite his appearance, Huckabee is not on the side of the chimps. She concludes:

Mitt was right when he said that “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.” Now if he would only admit he’s describing himself.

Time to start marketing those Romney flip-flops, complete with matching underwear.