OK, so I’m reading a very interesting article on Mitt Romney, perhaps the most interesting article I’ve seen on the Mormon Massachusetts governor, and near the end, the writer has the gall to ask him, “do you wear temple garments?” Mitt very politely responds the only way one can to that type of public question, saying it is a “private” issue and he won’t answer. But of course this raises the inevitable issue: why can journalists get away with asking Mormons questions about their underwear when they would never get away with asking questions like that to a Jew, Muslim or Buddhist?
Orthodox Jews wear all kinds of sacred clothing, as to people from other religions, yet I’ve never seen the press ask them about it. After all, it is sacred to them and it is not politically correct to make fun of things that are sacred to others. Yet somehow it is OK to make fun of Mormons because Mormons are just so darned funny. I mean, they’re nice and polite and direct and have clean shiny teeth and they go to these nice clean temples and have all kinds of secret meetings and oaths. Boy, they sure are peculiar! Not that there’s anything wrong with that (but let’s ask the question so we can make fun of them anyway)!!!
During the Salt Lake City Olympics, the Washington Post wrote an extremely nasty article on temple garments. The article was so inappropriate that one of the Marriotts in Washington DC complained to the editors and raised the issue of double standards regarding sacred issues. I’m not sure if the Post ever apologized.
I suppose we’ll see a lot more of this in the coming years. I’m pretty sure Mitt will run for president, and sacred things will be trashed repeatedly. But it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
NOTE: THE ATLANTIC ARTICLE ABOVE WILL EXPIRE IN THREE DAYS, BY JULY 28, SO IF YOU DON’T READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE THAT, YOU NEED TO EITHER BUY THE MAGAZINE OR GET AN ON-LINE SUBSCRIPTION.
Followup: I sent a letter complaining about this angle on this article to the editors of the Atlantic. If anybody else wants to follow suit, here’s the Atlantic letters page:
http://www.theatlantic.com/letters/edlet.htm
I too read that article, but I didn’t see that question as offensive or mocking. It was simply the journalist’s way of seeing just “how Mormon” Mitt is, which is a legitimate question. People were curious to know just how Jewish Lieberman was, and whole books have been written about the nature and intensity of Bush’s faith. People have a right to know the level of religious devotion in their politicians and the nature of that devotion.
We need to stop being secretive or hypersensitive about the fact that we wear religiously significant underwear. It’s not that big of a deal, but we can make it a big deal by blushing or getting angry every time it is mentioned.
Furthermore, I thought the article was fair and honest in its description of what the garment is. Nothing mocking or condescending. The Washington Post piece was offensive, and we had a right to be angry. But I think this Atlantic piece was well written and fair. We need to differentiate between the two and be careful not to react defensively to all mention of the garment by non Mormons.
Sheldon: You are correct re: differentiation; but only if you concede that it is appropriate to ask folks of different religions if they are wearing their religious clothing; i.e. Excuse me Mr. Singh; but do you have a small sword under your clothes and have you really never cut your hair?
I suspect many folks find this line of questioning inappropriate, regardless of the context or rationale.
P.S. I can’t resist a Steve E. Impersonation:
POACHER!!!
[note, the time stamp doesn’t work well, but I did email Adam the Atlantic article he linked to in the T&S news thread]
Lyle, I gotta admit it, I simply don’t read much of the Mormon bloggernacle except for M* on a daily basis. I write this hesitantly — I probably should read it more — but I don’t for whatever reason. So, I had no way of knowing that the Romney link was anywhere else than here. While looking at your reference, I also saw an interesting Nate Oman post on Roberts that was similar in some ways to my post on Roberts (but much better written). Oh well.
Geoff:
np. It was really more of a joke, as Steve’s poacher comments always inspire a laugh in me when I see them. š
HT to Adam for the following link to Romney’s Oped on Abortion. Very thoughtful.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/
I have to agree with Sheldon (#2) that the way the garment issue is treated in this article is rather more respectful than others I’ve read in the past. At the same time, though, Mitt’s answer to the “How Mormon are you?” question (paragraph before garment question) was more than satisfactory. He describes how important his faith is to him in terms the reading public can appreciate. The journalist’s follow-up question strikes me as gratuitous, even if not mean-spirited. It simply plays up what the public will see as the peculiar element in Mormonism.
Considering what has been written in the past (didn’t read the WP piece, but there was a really nasty Denver Post article around the same time), I would hope that anyone who writes in to complain will temper their complaint with some praise for the generally even-handed treatment of the “Atlantic” piece.
I didn’t see the question here as inappropriate either. I think it a valid question. Further I think questions about “how Mormon Romney is” are going to dog him and probably keep him from winning the nomination. One can but hope that he places second so that at least these questions won’t dog future Mormons in quite the same way.
I should add that there have been inappropriate articles before like the Wash Post one or one over in Denver during the Olympic. But this one certainly wasn’t an example of it.
Sheldon, Robert and Clark, with all due respect, I don’t think you’re thinking this through very carefully. Ok, the issue is “how Mormon are you?” Romney answers very completely. And then the reporters asks about his underwear. I mean, give me a break. There are all kinds of ways of following up without asking prurient questions about somebody’s underwear. How about, “how often do you go to the temple?” or “how much time a week do you spend on Church duties?” or “how often do you see the prophet and the apostles and discuss Church matters with them?” The writer could have even asked Romney if he pulled any strings to get the Boston temple built. Any of those questions more directly deals with the issue at hand (“how Mormon are you?”) than asking about his underwear. Nobody from another religion would ever be asked that type of question, precisely because it is in the area of things that are not politically correct to discuss, unless of course you are a Mormon.
Geoff,
I’m Jewish, not Mormon, but agree with you that asking anyone about their underwear in a professional setting can be construed as disrespectful. However, reading the article you cite, I don’t think the question was posed maliciously. That said, I think any fascination non-Mormons may have with the garments is due to the amount of secrecy that accompanies the issue. I’m not sure if that is a mandate due to their sacred nature or simply an aversion to discuss undergarments in polite conversation. As for orthodox Jews, there are really only two sacred items of clothing (the black hats/coats are a stylistic choice [not a commandment] by one sect of the orthodox community): the yarmulke (skull cap) and tsit-tsit (specially knotted fringes that, technically, could be attached to any item of clothing). Both of these items are meant to be seen publicly, and therefore, are freely discussed by those who wear them. I’m not suggesting the temple garments be addressed in the same way, only that their “mystery” for non-Mormons is largely responsible for any interest or ridicule that might exist.
Adam: thanks for the info…nice comment. While that addresses the Jewish side of the question; it doesn’t address the Sikh side, or any other minority group whose religious practices are questioned.
Instapundit (http://instapundit.com/archives/024471.php ):
Adam L, thanks for your input. I’m glad you stopped by and I hope you do more often. This article may help you understand why we take discussion of our temple garments so seriously. But I think the main point is that there are some things you just don’t ask people — ie, you don’t ask them about their underwear. It seems pretty common sense to me.
The underwear thing was broached over a decade ago by an MTV interview who asked Bill Clinton the “boxers or briefs” question. Clinton was, IMHO, dumb enough to respond, rather than deflecting the question. Can you imagine Hillary being asked: “thong or full cover?” Just as in an earlier generation, gentlemen didn’t open others’ mail, in this one I don’t think polite people ask others about their underwear (whether it has religious significance or not).
Of course, the best response to the “boxers or briefs?” question was the one “reported” by Jay Leno as Bob Dole’s response: “Depends.”
Mark B, LOL! You made my day.
Geoff, I agree that there were probably better ways of determining Mitt’s orthodoxy. However, I think that getting fussy about the issue only adds to the sense that there is something mysterious about it, some dark secret that needs to be exposed by his enemies. If he would have simply answered “Yes,” people probably wouldn’t give it a second thought.
Although the scenarios are not parallel and the reasons for the questions different, imagine if Clinton had solemnly informed that MTV teeny bopper that whether he wore boxers or briefs was his business? It would have made him look slightly more ridiculous than the question itself. Instead, he answered in his squirrelly way (“usually briefs”), everyone laughed, and it was no big deal.
“Clinton was, IMHO, dumb enough to respond, rather than deflecting the question.”
You posted while I was writing. Anyway, I think while the question was stupid, answering the question was brilliant. Made him seem down to earth, and probably endeared him to more than a few voters.
It was a tacky question, but everyone is dying to hear the answer. Most people don’t understand the spiritual significance of garments, they just think garments are weird religious clothing. And that garments are “underwear” that are never displayed publicly (no thanks to “Angels in America” or the recent “Cold Case” episode) simply heightens the curiosity. Kudos to Gov. Romney for not explaining his answer to this tacky question, but I wonder how many Mormons (or others) will be (or have) checking him out for the telltale garment signs.
Hugh Hewitt’s take:
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/07/24-week/index.php#a000018
Now that seems to me to be an extraordinarily inappropriate question –like asking a Catholic when they last went to confession. But I fully expect Romney opponents to keep throwing such stuff at him, and in real sense it is better for the questions to come now rather than later. By the time 2008 rolls around, the “LDS issue” will have been talked to death and it may in fact have the same impact as Kennedy’s Catholicism did in 1960.
I think he’s right. It’s like asking a member of a certain Hindu sect if he/she undergoes the proper purification rituals before sex.
Maybe they asked him because of his shirtless sex-appeal campaign picture in ’02.
Geoff writes:
I’m with Geoff here. Romney’s already answered the question that Pappu (whose work I’ve read and enjoyed in the New York Observer for years) asked, then Pappu essentially asks it again, but this time in a way he knows ahead of time is rather inappropriate.
By the way, I recommend that those who haven’t already read Alex Beam’s Globe piece read it now. It is a perfect example of how, as satirizzed by the Instapundit snippet Max quotes above, it is possible to raise numerous sinister questions about a subject through a superficial tone of concern and sympathy.
Geoff, I think we agree that the question was not valid (I called it “gratuitous”), but I’m not sure outrage is the best response, at least not in this case. Outrage campaigns (in general–not just in LDS contexts) can give the object of complaint more attention than it would otherwise receive. I’d like to see the whole garment question become a non-issue. If we treat it as a non-issue, I think the majority of the electorate will agree and will see gratuitous questions about it as tasteless. We should protest the way we are treated in the media, but in a way that allows us to take the moral and rhetorical high ground. I’m not sure that becoming indignant is that path.
Robert, you raise an interesting point, but there is a comparison here. Would it be alright for anybody to ask racist or sexist questions (“hey, Bryant Gumble, do you like fried chicken and watermelon?”)? Obviously not. These is completely unacceptable in our society. The pressure is not on Bryant Gumble to ignore the question and hope it goes away. The pressure is on the person who asked the inappropriate question to realize that what he did was inappropriate, and for others to realize it, and for questions like this not to be repeated. I would not call my post an “outrage campaign.” I dislike outrage campaigns as well primarily because of the tone of the outrage brings about contention. I am simply pointing out something that a reporter did that I believe is wrong and doing my part (writing to the Atlantic) in the hopes it won’t be repeated. I can tell you as a former reporter that there is a decent possibility that some editor at the Atlantic will say to himself, “yeah, that probably crossed a line,” and there may even be some changes because of it. No outrage, just opinions expressed calmly and reasonably.
Another point: when was the last time you heard Harry Reid — or any of the Udalls — being asked, “how Mormon are you?” and “do you wear temple garments?” It appears these are only questions for Republican Mormons.
I don’t think Harry Reid or any of the Udalls is running for president.
Mark B, Reid may not be running for president but he’s arguably a more well-known public figure than Romney. Yet, his religion appears to be irrelevant because he’s from the correct political party. I have yet to read a story saying, “can Harry Reid really lead the Democrats?” There appears to be a double standard there.
Geoff, thanks for your response. I was probably reading more “outrage” into your post than was actually there. I completely support “opinions expressed calmly and reasonably” and trust you did an articulate job in responding. Sadly, I’ve probably become so inured to the generally negative and unfair treatment of the church in the media that anything better than the old “magic underwear” slur seems like improvement. Thanks for reminding me that I should expect more. Here’s to hoping that someday tasteless questions about religion (ours and others) will be considered as offensive as racism and sexism.
I agree Geoff.
The garment thing was asked and answered by more than one member on 60 minutes back in what, ’96 was it?
I don’t think they ask out of malicious intent but out of curiousity and honestly, ignorance.
I was asked about the garments at work once. I was happy to clarify given that the reason they asked was another co-worker said Mormon men wore secret underwear that prevented them from cheating. Ha! I’m sure there’s several Mormon women who wish that were true.
Can you imagine Hillary being asked: “thong or full cover?”
Ew. That was a mental picture I could have done without.
I don’t see the question as being very disrespectful. I haven’t read the article, though….couldn’t get to it. A question like that you can tell more from the tone, than the actual question.
My husband answers lots of questions about garments. I think that many people are very clueless about it, and I would not mind being asked in a more private setting….or explaining in a more public setting why MOrmons wear garments.
I think he could have easily answered the question like it is no big deal. Underwear of personal religious significance–no big deal. But instead he didn’t answer the question like it was no big deal. Underwear–off limits–no big deal.
A little bit of darned if you do, darned if you don’t.
Let supporters of Romney pray he doesn’t encounter opponents with strategists as underhanded as Rove.
Davis, Rove is the rule not the exception. If Romney wants to be President he most certainly will encounter people who will use dirty tricks, just as arguably happened the first time he ran for governor. Anyone who thinks Rove is particularly worse than someone like say Carvell under Clinton is deluding themselves (IMO). There’s too much power for such figures not to crop up.
I’m not justifying it in the least, mind you. But politics isn’t for the thin skinned. And sadly a sizable portion of the population doesn’t really deliberate over issues but votes based upon emotional and superficial responses. Thus Dukakis lost a lot of votes because he looked silly in a tank, Kerry and Gore lost a lot because they seemed wooden, ill at east and not telegenic, while Reagan and Clinton gained a lot because of the charisma. Hate it if we will. But that’s reality. The only solution is for people in America to change.
And that’s something anyone who is Mormon who plans on running better consider. I can 100% guarantee that if Romney wins the nomination that Democrats will use the old Blacks and the Priesthood to motivate the African American community to come out and vote. And it will be messy for the church (IMO) with lots of innuendo and half truths that we all know from anti-Mormons.
As Geoff said, the only reason Reid avoided a lot of this is because he’s a Democrat. Even so I recall a few Republicans making barely disguised anti-Mormon comments about him a few months back.
Davis, I considered answering your stab at Rove, and then I got a horrible flashback to your evisceration of that guy who bragged about getting banned from T&S and I decided that it’s not worth trying to take you on in a debate. So, to sum up, I agree with whatever you say. Now please don’t hurt me.
Clark,
Politics is a rough-and-tumble game, no doubt about it. Rove isn’t the first to use despicable tactics including whisper campaigns based on innuendoe, and he won’t be the last. But he was particularly good at it, and he, in my opinion, took it to new lows. I don’t like James Carville, but I don’t think he’s stooped as low as Rove. I can’t forgive Bush/Rove for what they did to McCain in South Carolina, and had Bush not been opposed by Gore and then Kerry I wouldn’t have voted for him. Anyway, read this story for a good sampling of Rove’s MO. I think it’s possible (although perhaps improbable) that Romney would run against someone who had the honor and decency not to exploit his Mormonism in bad faith for political gain. Had Romney been running against Bush/Rove, they would have handed him his head.
Geoff,
I’ll be nice.
This is a great post and set of comments. I blogged about this here:
http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2005/07/mitt-romney-and-atlantic-has-legacy.html
I hadn’t seen this post when I was blogging but I’ve linked back to it now.
One of my friends, on his mission, waiting in line at the bank, got asked by someone behind him whether he was wearing his magic underwear.
He turned around, looked at the guy, and then said something like—“Are you in the habit of going up to complete strangers and asking them about their underwear?”