Presidential Politix & Mitt Romney’s Underwear
(The photo originally posted here has been removed
at the request of readers who objected to its content.)
I seldom blog on presidential politics (except to give John Kerry well deserved kicks in the slats) because it’s tough to rise above the “horse race” aspect of who is running and what the competition is.
But as my TMV colleague Michael van der Galien has noted, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is making noises about a presidential run in 2008, and he is an exception to my rule.
Even though Romney is much too conservative for my taste overall, there are things that I like about him, notably his efforts to spearhead health-care reform in Massachusetts, which is the first state to embrace near-universal coverage for all of its citizens. That, dear friends, is where we need to go nationally.
But what fascinates me about Romney — and you’ll be reading and hearing tons about this in the coming months — is that he is a Mormon and believes that America had a “divine founding.”
I am old enough to remember the controversy over John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism when he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1960. Some people tried to make his religion an issue (you know, the Vatican as bogeyman), but it was a non starter.
Romney’s faith will be anything but a non starter, and there already are questions about whether a Mormon can make a serious run, let alone be nominated. Whether a Mormon is even a Christian in the traditional sense of the word. Whether Romney wears special Mormon underwear (see photo). You get the idea.
Leading the charge is Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish. For the record, I like this enormously popular (openly gay Roman Catholic) blogger when he is not endlessly plugging his new book. Andrew has written extensively and intelligently about the right-wing Christianist hijacking of the Republican Party, but is off to a rather uneven start on Romney. This no doubt is in large part because Romney opposes Massachusetts’ legislative and court endorsement of same-sex marriage.
What matters to me is this:
Although I find aspects of the teachings of the Church of Latter Day Saints to be antithetical to my own beliefs, I feel the same way about Roman Catholicism and some other faiths.
Can Romney run without his faith being a ball and chain?Can Romney be the Un-McCain?
Can Romney be embraced by a party whose “Big Tent” has shrunk to the size of a Zip-Loc bag and is intolerant of anyone other than “their own kind?”
Can Romney endure the media exposure that awaits him? What if his great-great grandfather was a bigamist? And what about that underwear?
It’s not likely to be pretty, but it’s bound to be fascinating.
93 Responses to “Presidential Politix & Mitt Romney’s Underwear”
I share the same attraction and reservations about Romney. I will be entertained to watch the religious community twist itself up in knots about it.
Shaun Mullen, I remind you of the policy of this forum:
(3) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog’s host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site — which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.
Do you think you would get away with mocking the religious attire of any other relgion?
Would you get away with posting a photo of an Orthodox Jew wearing nothing but kippe, tallit, and phylacteries?
Just because there is (so far) an enormous difference in the body count does not make anti-Mormonism any less hateful than anti-Semitism.
For your information, the garment worn by Latter-day Saints is a reminder of sacred covenants that we have made with God in His holy temple. We wear it under our clothes because we do not choose to parade our religion before the world.
Bigotry and intolerance are never funny. If I were your mother, I would wash your filthy juvenile mouth out with soap.
I ask the moderator of this forum to remove the offensive photo.
Tracy Hall Jr.
Provo Canyon, Utah
Poor Tracy. As a religious Jew I will be happy to lead you to photos online of tefillin, tallitot and tzitzit. Most have been placed there by the marketers thereof. The Tallit Katan can definitely be considered as underwear.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with photographing such items.
Here we go: Neatzit is a brand of Tallit Katan. It’s an undershirt with Tzitzit attached. PHOTO
Prayer Shawl/Tallit
Phylacteries/Tefillin
Tracy:
Please don’t shoot the messenger.
I did not bring up the subject of whether Mr. Romney wears BVDs or church-approved undergarments. It happens to be pertinent to what will be a long and predictably contentious discusison in the blogosphere and eventually the MSM about every nook and cranny of Mr. Romney’s beliefs and those of his forebears. (Remember George Allen’s mother?)
While Joe is the ultimate arbiter, I do not believe my post is a violation of TMV‘s comment policies just because I choose to discuss something in an appropriate context that some readers might find offensive because of their own context.
Please try to chill. Otherwise you and a lot of other Mormon’s are going to have nervous breakdowns long before 2008.
Tracy, I think you missed the point of the photo and reference. To my understanding Shaun wasn’t using this to gratuitously make fun of Mormons, but to show what we can expect when a Mormon politician enters the filthy smelly tar-pit that is the national stage of politics. It’s an example. It’s already started, but if he actually made the nomination every iota of his life would be set up for questioning and ridicule. Every Mormon belief and custom, or every custom attributed to Mormons, especially the weirder ones, would be attributed to him and used with him. He will be asked where he stands on polygamy. He will be asked if he thinks that the majority of the US population is damned to hell. Shaun ties this together by saying:
He is exemplifying how Romney’s nomination could launch into a very very ugly scene.
There’s still two years to go, more than enough time for current favorites to implode and new stars to rise. Of the current GOP names, I think McCain is the only one who could pull it off. Romney makes “The Gay” too much of an issue, great for the base, but not for the independents. As for Guliani, I leave you with the always wise Jon Stewart:
I am a Jew and do not find public discussion of our rituals, or those of Mormons offensive. The treatment of these issues is much more tame at TMV than at most other political sites.
Perhaps this is a opportunity to educate us on why and how these undergarments contribute to your devotion.
I really don’t think that Romney will have much of a chance in the primaries, especially here in the south. Here some of the “less enlightened” christian groups (the ones that go around the UGA campus telling me that I will go to hell) consider Mormonism not only not to be Christian, but to be a cult. So, that’s a small segment of the Republican base who won’t give Romeny the time of day…
I dated person who believed in the teachings of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now they call themselves “Community of Christ,” however, I tend to think of them as kind of a “Mormon-light”), but had to go to a Baptist Church due to the lack of any other convenient church. She wasn’t able to share her actual beliefs for fear of being looked-down upon by her fellow church-goers.
I’m not usually one to stick up for religious groups (being a “non-believer” myself), but there is a lot of anti-mormonism, especially in the greater (southern) christian community. I don’t support Mr. Romney because he is an uber-conservative, but to not support a candidate because they believe in an extra holy book is somewhat short-sighted and pathetic.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that I pray at home but my children attended Society of Friends (Quaker) schools and attended meeting because their mother and I felt it was important that they be given a spiritual education.
As faiths go, they don’t get more tolerant than Quakers. That said, allow me one wee barb, Ms.Tracy Hall.
You state that members of your faith “do not choose to parade our religion before the world.” I find that kinda curious because all of the Mormon kids I went to school with took off a year to parade their religion all over the world, primarily Africa.
Yeah Shaun it is such a horrible thing that Mormons take a year off to build infrastructure and stuff abroad… especially Africa. I wish liberals had a similar tradition, but as usual they talk but never walk.
Dawnsblood –
I think Shaun’s point was that the Mormons actually do something that Tracy claimed they didn’t. He wasn’t being critical or attacking the practice just citing an example. In fact, based on his other posts and background, I would bet he supports such work as do many other liberals. Many of my friends and collegues have done numerous hours of volunteer community and overseas work, some for extended periods. Just because you don’t know any doesn’t mean it’s not happening – it just says something about the crowd you hang with.
And Tracy – Shaun’s dead on. If seeing a picture of underwear gets you all atwitter you better retreat to a deserted island because there’s going to be all kind of stuff flying once the races heat up for 2008. Especially on the right and especially concerning religion. Some will be intolerant and inappropriate but others (such as Shaun’s here) are just raising the issue that will be raised.
BTW, I’m Protestant and you can post pictures of me in my underwear if you like
Mormons take a year off to build infrastructure and stuff abroad… especially Africa. I wish liberals had a similar tradition, but as usual they talk but never walk.
I guess you’re not a big fan of the Peace Corps.
This is so ridiculous that I can only conclude that this is a spoof meant to show how absurd the religious right wing perspective can be.
We Jews do stuff like this all the time. When we’re not physically doing it, we have donated the $$$ so it can be done. Try AJWS, AJC and JDC for starters.
“Do you think you would get away with mocking the religious attire of any other relgion?”
To paraphrase “Family Guy” there’s a giant squid sitting at this table that nobody has seen fit to notice…Islam.
I fully support the right of people to make fun of religion…freedom of speech is the freedom to offend; if it’s not that, then it counts for nothing.
However, I find it very interesting how Sullivan et al focus extraordinary amounts of attention on the “Christianists” and their appalling ways (egad: Mormon underwear), while an extraordinarily intolerant ideology fills the Internet with decaptiation videos, renders “honor killings” of young women who have embarrassed their families a fact of life in many European countries, guns down and slits the throat of filmmakers who criticize it in broad daylight…yet the focus of liberals like Sullivan is on “Christianists” (an obvious mirroring of “Islamist” with all its connotations, despite Sullivan’s protestations that “his” definition is subtly different…I could coin the term “Hollywoodist” and define it as someone who lives in Florida, but it still has popular connotations…Sullivan I imagine knows this quite well).
I would call readers attention to the editorial in the NYT regarding the Mohammed cartoons…and the Times principled decision not to print images that would offend the religious beliefs of people…published in the same day’s edition of the NYT with a Art Section editorial praising and reproducing an image of the Virgin Mary covered in shit.
My point:
I support the right to mock all religions. This has been central to comedy–and to political debate–since the Middle Ages.
Yet, I notice, liberals seem particularly focused on mocking and attacking Christians…and notably hesitant about anything that would violate the sensitivities of Muslims.
Marlowecan, I am a center-left liberal and proud Jewish Zionist who has has devoted MUCH attention to Islam. Perhaps you were not visiting this blog during the Prophet cartoon controversy. Without checking, I suspect Andrew Sullivan has devoted a lot attention to Islam as well.
I read Shaun’s post when it went up and didn’t see anything wrong with it or the photo. I think it’s being taken in a way that it a)isn’t meant and b)doesn’t come across to anyone who isn’t looking for reasons to object. Shaun is correct. I was a kid when JFK ran and I do remember how the issue of his religion was all the rage. He is also correct that a political party that ran an ad showing a white woman asking Harold Ford to call her is not precisely a shining example of a big tent party — so this is a factor that will be watched by political reporters and analyists. I don’t see anywhere Shaun saying that Romney should be disqualified or poking fun at the photo above. I’m Jewish and have during the past few years run either jokes or photos that poke a bit of fun at Judaism or people who practice it. The latest was a post on NYC’s Bloomberg: i had saved a photo and finally used it on another coblogger’s post…of Bloomberg with a yarmulke kissing the wall in Jerusalem. So I think Shaun’s post was taken in a way he did not intend, has made it clear he did not intend, and in a way the vast majority of readers will never take it.
Thanks Joe!
Illustrated instructions for donning phylacteries, courtesy of the Chabadniks.
Shame on you Joe. How disappointing. My response is here at The Bloggernacle Times.
Yes, Guy, I read it on your fine blog. I simply disagree with you and your take on it and really don’t think that this is the same thing as the furor over the Muslim cartoons. I really wrote very little on that but others on this site did. It’s basically “shame on you” because I see it differently then I guess a lot of people will be saying I should be ashamed since I do see a lot of things differently than some people. I agree with Paul: instead of people saying “you’re a bigot to run this… you’re a bigot to write this” they might see how other sites are raising this issue — and instead of going into attack mode specify what the problem with the photo is. It is NOT the same thing as the Muslim cartoon furor. And those who might think it is should google it to refresh their memories.
In fact here’s the GOOGLE WEB LINK and you can research it yourself.
It’s NOTHING like the Muslim cartoon furor.
Joe, it’s shame to allow your site to be used to further religious bigotry of any type. Your own comment policy states:
(3) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog’s host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site — which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.
You may not appreciate how offensive, profane, and religiously bigoted the posting these photos are to millions and millions of believing Latter-day Saints through out the world. But, you can rest assured allowing these photographs to remain on your site is offensive, profane, and bigoted to many people.
It’s not the same as the Muslim cartoon furor in that the Latter-day Saints aren’t going to riot in the street or issue religious fatwa’s; but, I can assure you we are offended.
Let me be clear, and I said this on my blog, I don’t think you personally are a religious bigot. I frequent your site daily and enjoy its content because I believe you to be a credible and reasonable blogger. So, when I find something so offensive to a religious group of people allowed to remain on your blog–I am indeed puzzled–and saddened.
Why is it so offensive to show a picture of religious attire?
Should Mormons be ashamed of their undergarments or something?
Seriously guys, I can understand being miffed at the general idea of dealing with religion with a jovial tone, but no assertion was made about the nature of the garments, only that it was distinctly Mormon (which it is).
The fact remains, if Mormons are proud of their faith, even the underwear, then they shouldn’t be offended or ashamed when an aspect of the Mormon faith is shown. If they are, then they should reflect on their chosen faith.
Guy, don’t you get more revealing underwear advertisements in the mail every day? There is the issue of modesty, but those undergarment photos (posted at Wikipedia) could have been taken with mannequins.
Holly said: “It’s NOTHING like the Muslim cartoon furor.”
But it is in that some of the comments above clearly show people being offended by this. Holly, you may not find it offensive, nor do I, but others such as Guy certainly seem to.
In this regard, it is VERY MUCH like the the Muslim cartoon furor.
Doesn’t this debate revolve around how we define what is “offensive” in our pluralistic society…and how we should respond to it (and issue also touched upon in the Richards debate this week)?
While it is Joe’s call here, who is to judge what is offensive in our society and to whom. Can a liberal Jewish person decide that a Mormon should not be offended by an image?
I believe in a pretty widespread view of freedom of speech based on John Milton’s “Areopagitica”…which influenced the drafting of the First Amendment…in that the state (or Joe or anyone) should make no prior restraint on publication.
But again…I would submit that the NYT approach is the model that is unfortunately widespread throughout the liberal west.
If Christians are offended…there is a lot of chest-thumping about freedom of speech. If Muslims are offended…there is a lot of chest-thumping about “responsible speech”.
I am LDS.
The picture of people wearing garments, in my opinion, was not a choice made out of respect for Mormonism. It was chosen because it is something considered odd and funny by some people who are not LDS and this is a way for them to instantly share in some cheap laughs.
It is true that we send missionaries out into the world and that we actively promote our religion.
However, though we are active proselyters, we do not use the temple garments as a promotional tool and we do not parade them in front of others. That is something that we keep private and sacred. One reason for this, is that while we respect them, we also know that there are others who feel the concept of “holy underwear” (not our term for them) is ludicrous. We aren’t ashamed of them. However, they are designed to be modest and to be worn under an outer layer of clothing. We do not photograph ourselves in them and we do not post pictures of them on blogs. Those people who dressed in these temple garments and allowed themselves to be photographed were not trying to engage in a fruitful and thoughtful discussion about religion. Rather, they were deliberately acting against the LDS church standards, which prohibit this sort of thing.
I repeat, “It’s NOTHING like the Muslim cartoon furor.”
When Jews are offended (and I sometimes am), we write Letters to the Editor. When Muslims are offended, they murder people.
Matt said: “The fact remains, if Mormons are proud of their faith, even the underwear, then they shouldn’t be offended or ashamed when an aspect of the Mormon faith is shown. If they are, then they should reflect on their chosen faith.”
Matt…if they are honestly offended (as opposed to asserting as much for a political or other purpose) then can’t you allow them the right to be offended.
Would you adopt a similar tone about the African Americans in Richards’ audience who were offended by his comments?
Again…and I am a bloody atheist for God’s sake, but I think this is a clear point: If Christians are offended…why do people lecture them that they shouldn’t be offended? But when Muslims are offended it becomes an international incident and from the NYT to the corridors of power people fall over themselves to apologize to the Muslim world for a cartoon?!
Matt:
It’s offensive because the temple garment is a central part of a sacred religious ceremony conducted only in holy Temples around the world. Faithful Latter-day saints covenant to live a certain lifestyle. The garment is an integral part of that ceremony and those sacred religious covenants. The ceremony is very sacred to Mormons and that is why it is performed in holy Temples rather than say, on the front lawn of someone’s house.
I’m quite proud of my faith–yet, I don’t particularly enjoy people posting for public view and ridicule that which I, and millions of others hold to be sacred and holy. Just as millions believe the sacred name of God to be holy, and will not even speak it themselves–yet are offended when others take that name in vain.
Holly: It has nothing to do with revealing underclothing. Why would Wikipedia cut off the heads in the photos if they were of mannequins?
Holly said: “I repeat, “It’s NOTHING like the Muslim cartoon furor.” When Jews are offended (and I sometimes am), we write Letters to the Editor. When Muslims are offended, they murder people.
I agree with you there…of course, not all Muslims who are offended would murder people…but there is violent response to offense in the Muslim world, whereas we debate the issue.
This is a point I touched upon in a post above:
How do we know what is truly offensive?
Sometimes, as in the Muslim Cartoon fiasco, offense is blown up for a political purpose. I believe the Muslim cartoon business achieved its clear purpose for those who made it an international issue: intimidation of the West.
The exchange of ideas…sometimes radical and offensive…is the wellspring of democracy. When closure or censorship is imposed — especially self-censorship as at the NYT – we all suffer.
But nonetheless, I would argued there is a double standard in the treatment of Christians on that issue.
If Christians say this about McCain what do you think they will say about a Mormon?
Mannequins often DO have their heads cut off.
OK, the garments are for a temple ceremony but they’re also for wearing all the time? Didn’t they used to be hung out to dry on clotheslines with the rest of the laundry?
What happens when a Mormon man has a seminal emission on his garments?
What happens when a Mormon woman leaks menstrual blood on her garments?
Maybe its wiser to get back to the topic of Romney’s candidacy (for all concerned).
Eh. I just don’t see his candidacy as very viable.
The interest group he’s most interested in attracting – conservative/fundamentalist Christians – do, in fact, regard Mormonism as a “cult.” The central tenet of Mormonism is the belief that Jesus had another ministry in the New World, and that Christianity existed here long before the Europeans arrived. That’s completely anathema to conservative/fundamentalist Christians, who take their Biblical literalism very, very seriously.
So the people who otherwise might support Romney on religious grounds are, in fact, more likely to oppose him on religious grounds.
And outside that particular interest group, there just aren’t enough people who want Christian fundamentalism of any type running the country.
Mitt’s father (George Romney)ran Michigan as a Moderate. To win in Massachusetts I doubt if any candidate can run from the Right. So what is MR, other than a politician who takes positions according to the election he campaigns for.
GUY: No one was saying you should not be proud of your faith. This post simply says that Romney needs to be ready for some of the questions that may come from the media and also possibly from the left part of the blogosphere. It is a valid point when you see the way the news media fixates on an aspect. Presmably he’s ready for it.
Rudi is completely correct. Romney would never have won an election in Massachusetts if he had taken the positions he is taking now in his bid for the Presidency. Given that and how he backtracked on aspects of the health care initiative in Massachusetts I wouldn’t vote for him no matter what party he belonged to.
When it comes to how his Mormonism will affect his run for President consider that the LDS had official positions until 1978 that were virulently racist. Much of the “reasoning” behind those policies are still official church teachings so far as I know. This means that it was an integral part of his faith until he was 31 years old. If you think that won’t be brought up in the election I want to know what drugs you’re on.
Please try to chill
Chill? Not on your pathetic, bigoted life.
In the entire blogosphere, there is no larger incident of hypocrisy than this blog’s advertising of itself as MODERATE.
In point of fact, you sir are a religious bigot, and this blog is as far from moderate as anyone could get.
If you want to bash religion, then have at it with your pathetic, ugly rants. But don’t call yourself moderate.
Bigotry is not moderate.
I am LDS too.
Danithew’s post is right on, and no one is responding to it. I suspect that’s because there is no good response.
By the way, those of you (Matt, Holly) who seem to want to instruct LDS people as to what should offend us and what should not: Are you seriousabout that?
By the way, Holly: When our special undergarments are soiled, we wash them. Feel enlightened?
Also, the argument that “People are going to do this anyway, you’d better get used to it,” seems to miss the point, doesn’t it? Isn’t the question whether or not this is appropriate political dialogue?
Personally, I find everyone’s interest in my underwear somewhat creepy, but I’ll leave that for another time.
For those truly interested in the role of Mitt Romney’s religion in the 2008 election, I invite you to visit Article VI Blog. You won’t find any photos of underwear there, however. Just serious discussion.
Man, what a joke of a thread and a silly post.
The link above doesn’t work so you might post it again..
I foind this particular sentence in the post to be unintentionally ironic:
__________________________________________________
Can Romney be embraced by a party whose “Big Tent” has shrunk to the size of a Zip-Loc bag and is intolerant of anyone other than “their own kind?”
__________________________________________________
How soon people forget the Lieberman-Lamont debacle…
Untill Romney starts praising Democrats that are deemed totally unacceptable by the GOP, then the Lieberman/Lamont “debacle” doesn’t apply very well Joe.
The LDS sure know fashion when it comes to underware….LMAO.
Yes Pyst … and you sure know how to spell. “Underware” … you are brilliant.
Hey, I didn’t know Bret Hart was a mormon.
As an attempt to demonstrate the egregious nature of the offense in the eyes other religions it would be an offense akin to this account from the Bible.
1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.
2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.
3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.
4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.
5 ¶ In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.
6 Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.
If anyone is familiar with the above story and see shame in the actions of the King of Babylon they may get a feel for what is the feeling of the LDS/Mormon community. These are seen as vesels taken out of, and used in profane and, at their core, to idolatrous ends (catching attention for the means of selling a story).
I don’t know if this will change the views of any Jews or those of other faiths. But I thought it worth while to give at least a reference to a story that people might have a better chance of understanding.
Actually DS, you picked one of the least important books in the bible to illustrate your point. In any case, underwear and Temple vessels are not the same thing. Again, here is a photo of Jewish underwear for sale, an undershirt of no religious significance bearing tzitzit (fringes) of great religious significance. PHOTO
I wasn’t wild about the analogy of Jewish clothing to LDS garments in the first place. I routinely see orthodox Jews wearing prayer shawls, tzitzit, etc. as I happen to pass by a place of prayer on many mornings. The orthodox Jewish clothing for prayers is sacred … I am not denying that. However, I don’t think that showing pictures of Jewish people wearing these clothes would have the same effect as displaying a photograph of two people wearing nothing but the LDS temple garments (as appears above).
So I’ll provide a different analogy. Let’s say that a Jewish man were to run for president, and you put a big picture of a circumcised penis at the top of your blog … I think that would be a more accurate analogy. We all know about circumcision. Though this is a custom that has been practiced for thousands of years, it’s semi-controversial for some people. It also happens to be a unique and ultimately personal sign of a unique covenant between G-d and His people. Regardless of how long the custom has been around, no one would mistake that sort of picture as a proper heading for a serious article about a Jewish political candidate. Everyone would immediately understand that posting that kind of picture would be an act of bigotry. In the same way, a picture of people wearing nothing but LDS garments is offensive … as it is not displayed as a serious sign of Mormonism but rather as objects of derision. Which, by the way, is also offensive.
1) underwear is not obscene
2) the photo was obviously not posted as an “object of derision”