At FrumForum Alex Knepper—who believes all religions are “equally bizarre and irrational”—argues that Mitt Romney should be judged based on his religion:
If freedom requires religion, if his Mormon faith sustains his life and he will be true to those practices, then I’m at an utter loss as to why we should ignore Romney’s religious beliefs when evaluating his fitness for the White House.
We ask plenty of questions of any evangelical Christian candidate: what do his beliefs about the nature of God, the nature of the cosmos, and the meaning of man’s life mean for his potential tenure in office? But for whatever reason, these questions are looked at as unnecessarily piercing and prejudiced when asked of a member of a minority faith.
When Sarah Palin gave her fumbling answer about Israel’s settlements, several commentators jumped on her faith, wondering whether she subscribed to the bizarre but potent sect of modern Christianity that believes in the imminence of the End Times. Will anyone ask Mitt Romney about the oddities of the dogma of the Mormon Church? There are plenty of Mormon doctrines that may strike people as a bit odd — and rightly so. It is established in the church that the devout can reach the upper echelons of heaven and eventually become gods themselves, able to create their own movie downloads universes and govern them as they see fit (all while supervised by the One True God). Why is it that when I bring this up to Romney fans, I am dismissed as a bigot?
As an atheist, I both understand and accept that in a predominantly Christian society, my thoughts on religion are necessarily going to open me up to questions. If I were to ever run for office (don’t count on that, by the way), I would not expect that my supporters would try to ward off any questions about my atheism with the victim-card of discrimination. One’s philosophy of religion contributes profoundly to his worldview and thus is a completely valid criterion by which to partially evaluate a candidate’s fitness for office.
Knepper has a valid point about certain religious beliefs and traditions being fair game for scrutiny while others are off-limits. There is a peculiar double-standard in place, though the criteria for which ones are included is difficult to discern. I also agree that religious beliefs—indeed I would include all beliefs of any type—should be considered fair game when evaluating a candidate. The question Knepper leaves unanswered, though, is how such beliefs are to be evaluated in the public square. Where is the line between reasonable criticism and irrational bigotry?
Personally, I’m open to being exceedingly tolerant of raw religious bigotry as long as its accompanied by a healthy portion of religious liberty. When we enter the public square I’m willing to allow anyone to make whatever nasty remarks they like about evangelicalism as long as I can presents arguments that are rooted in my faith and that are given a fair hearing.
Not everyone, however, is willing to offer such a compromise. How do we accommodate those who believe both that their religious convictions shape their thinking and that these beliefs are too personal to be scrutinized in public?
(I should add that I while I have plenty of criteria for judging Romney, I don’t know enough about Mormonism to even begin to know how to evaluate how his religious beliefs would affect policy. However, I do understand premillennial dispensationalism and would be leery of any candidate who believed that particular eschatological view should influence their Middle East policy. In this sense, then, I might be more wary of the religious beliefs of a fellow evangelical than I would be of a Mormon candidate.)
December 2nd, 2009 | 11:49 am
I think the answer to this question is given in your last paragraph. Most people do not have a very good understanding of how a particular religious belief will function in the context of the religion as a whole. If Romney thinks that the devout can become gods, then that is an interesting claim, but what is at stake, here? What is meant by “gods”? What does that say about human nature in the here and now? These are all questions of such a fundamental nature that it is difficult to sort out how they might shape one’s politics. And for people like us, who aren’t versed in Mormon theology, trying to use Romney’s religious beliefs to evaluate his politics is only slightly easier than trying to use his genetic code to do the same. Yes, his genetics probably shape his qualities in politically relevant ways, but it is much easier to look at the qualities than to derive them from their causes. On the other hand, if someone who takes Mormonism seriously can show us how Mormon beliefs tend to play themselves out politically (and the account should be recognizable to Mormons themselves), then those beliefs should be fair game.
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:20 pm
[...] old friend Joe Carter has posted an important response to the Frum commenter (Alex Knepper) that we discuss above: Knepper has a valid point about certain [...]
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:21 pm
“On the other hand, if someone who takes Mormonism seriously can show us how Mormon beliefs tend to play themselves out politically (and the account should be recognizable to Mormons themselves), then those beliefs should be fair game.”
There has been at least 100 years of Mormon politicians to study. Yes, even Harry Reid should be part of that equation no matter how much I believe he is an anomaly. Utah is also full of Mormons and has had prominent politicians and governors up to this day. It isn’t that Mormons haven’t existed in politics, but that people are starting to take notice. Pres. Reagan, or instance, had lots of them as advisers and spoke well of the religion. Even JFK had a few Mormons in high places in his cabinet. I believe this is the case of ignorance of history and religion.
December 2nd, 2009 | 1:39 pm
Jettboy, I didn’t mean that there haven’t been Mormons who have served in public offices of various sorts. But knowing this doesn’t get us very far in determining how Mormon theology (as it were) shapes and informs politics. Nor is it clear from the outset whether knowing how it does so in Senator Reid will be at all relevant to how it does in Governor Romney. It may be relevant, say, in the way that premillennialism is relevant to clarifying the point of postmillennialism. Or it may be relevant in some other way, or not at all.
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:24 pm
USA Today reports a recent study that says once people actually become acquainted with individual Mormons and their beliefs, prejudices against them decrease or disappear. Mormons are about 2% of the population of the US but concentrated mainly in Utah and the West. If Mormons would move out of Utah and spread out across the country, more people would actually meet them and find them to be just regular people. Mitt Romney can blame Mormons who refuse to leave Utah for the prejudices against his religion. :-)
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:53 pm
Romney was elected governor in Massachusetts, and there was not much discussion of his religion because his denomination is not influential here. That lack of concern might not translate nationally.
I can think of one policy issue where Mormons have a significant difference in their anthropology to create a contradiction with Roman Catholics: as Orrin Hatch demonstrated, Mormons believe human lives are ensouled at implantation, not conception, so that they don’t have a theological problem with ESCR (though they might have prudential concerns).
December 2nd, 2009 | 7:11 pm
I guess my problem is that, other than generally speaking, I have never evaluated anyone for their religion. I look at their political statements and actions to determine if they are conservative, liberal, moderate or what have you; paying more attention to the R or D next to their name. My thoughts are that as a relatively minority religion, considering a national candidate’s theology is not practical. Of course they wouldn’t align with mine.
December 3rd, 2009 | 11:30 am
When people are exposed to any other kind of people, they tend to find them regular folks and to think that things they objected to were not so bad after all. That doesn’t establish that they are not bad. Just like we explain away our own faults, we explain away the faults of people “like us”; nevertheless, we, and they, have faults.
This is why our sentiments are not, on the whole, good guides to conscience.
December 4th, 2009 | 1:30 am
There is a great article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism about the political culture among Mormons and the relationship of their theology to political behavior. It is an extensive article but the political culture and contemporary political behavior sections are most relevant to this discussion.
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=4057&REC=2
If the link does not work, search for the encyclopedia of mormonism, then politics.
December 4th, 2009 | 7:12 pm
[...] Carter wonders if there should ever be a Mormon in the White [...]
December 5th, 2009 | 3:42 pm
When I pondered that issue in the last election cycle, I didn’t see anything in the heterodox parts of Mormon theology that would lead to policy differences with orthodox Christian voters.
I wasn’t a Romney fan (I helped you a bit with the Huckabee campaign), but it was his economics and flexible ideology, not his theology, that had me uneasy.
January 13th, 2010 | 11:56 am
As a “Mormon” myself, I agree that a presidential candidates religious beliefs (or complete lack thereof) must unavoidably impact his/her view of life and politics. And questions that pertain to his/her handling of the presidential office from the perspective of their beliefs is appropriate within confines. For example, if a person belongs to the “Society of Friends” (Quakers) as did the late President Nixon, would their pacifist beliefs prevent them from going to war when terrorists attack our nation? But to question how the Mormon belief of possible deification of the human race would affect his/her views as the President of our country is just plain silly. – David Honaker (Phoenix, AZ, USA)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact