Jan. 9, 2007
Passing The People's Religious Test
The New Republic: Mitt Romney's Mormonism Is Nothing To Fear
-
Play CBS Video Video Notebook: The Next President Only On The Web: Women and minorities have entered the U.S. political arena, but Katie Couric asks whether America is really ready for a president who is not a white man.
-
Video Biden On Running For President Hannah Storm speaks with Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, his own presidential aspirations and Democratic control of Congress.
-
Republican Mitt Romney has announced he is exploring a 2008 presidential bid. (AP)
-
Who's Who 2008 Republican Hopefuls McCain and Giuliani head up the Republican pack chasing the presidency.
-
Who's Who 2008 Democratic Hopefuls Clinton, Obama and Edwards lead the chase for the Democratic nomination.
The U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It also says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." These provisions meant that the new American nation would not sanction a state church and would also not follow England in banning Catholics from public office. But these two provisions had, or have acquired, a broader non-legal meaning: that, because religious matters would not fall under the state's purview, Americans would not make a politician's particular faith a prime consideration in evaluating him or her for public office. Religion was part of the "private" sector or of civil society.
Of course, there have been limits to American tolerance. In the country's first 170 years, this principle of pluralism was applied to different kinds of Protestantism but not to Catholicism or Judaism. These were seen as religious aberrations whose adherents could not be trusted with the public's business. But John F. Kennedy broke the Catholic barrier in 1960, and Joe Lieberman may have chipped away at the barrier against Jews in 2000. Still, some religions remain suspect. Virginia Republican Representative Virgil Goode wants to rule out Muslims who refuse to take an oath on the Bible, and Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate, wants to exclude Mormons. Damon Linker, writing in The New Republic, seems to want to exclude Mormons unless they make a public declaration of church-state separation similar to that which Kennedy made in 1960.
Goode (who said, "I'm for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives") has been rightly dismissed as a bigot, but what about Weisberg and Linker? Perhaps it's because I am a nonbeliever who fails to find one theology more compelling than another, but I don't think there is a lot of difference between their opposition to Mitt Romney (because he is a Mormon) and Protestant opposition to Democrat Al Smith in 1928 (because Protestants thought that, as a Catholic, he would take his orders from the Pope).
Romney is descended from generations of Mormons. His father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan, a Republican presidential candidate in 1968, and, later, secretary of the housing and urban development. George Romney was a moderate Republican--a supporter of civil rights and an eventual critic of the Vietnam War. I've seen no evidence that he made any decision as a public official that could attributed to his faith rather than to the usual calculations of interest and conscience that politicians make. His son, Mitt, ran for Senate in 1994 and served as governor of Massachusetts for the last four years. I've also seen no evidence that, as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney made decisions on the basis of his religion. And, when he was asked about his beliefs, Romney, like many politicians, said that they are "private."
But Weisberg and Linker are not satisfied. They produce two kinds of arguments to show that Romney's Mormonism disqualifies or (in Linker's case) potentially disqualifies him for office. First, Weisberg argues that a Mormon should not be president because what Mormons believe is "dogmatic, irrational, and absurd." Someone who holds Mormon beliefs, Weisberg argues, displays "a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is." Weisberg cites the historical claims made by Mormon founder Joseph Smith that he based on tablets he found in upper New York state during the Second Great Awakening. According to The Book of Mormon, descendants of the original tribes of Israel lived in America thousands of years ago. Smith later located the Garden of Eden itself in Missouri.
Absurd and irrational? Certainly. But no more so than the beliefs of many Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. Is it more irrational to locate the Garden of Eden in Jackson County than in ancient Palestine or to ascribe magical powers of cognition to Smith or to Jesus himself or to a succession of Popes? I don't mean to blaspheme, but it's not obvious to me that one can draw a sharp distinction between the rationality of religious faiths. Weisberg, however, tries to do so. He disdains Mormonism because it is based on a "transparent and recent fraud." But it's no more recent than the Disciples of Christ, another Second Awakening Christian sect that claimed both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan as members.
What seems to bother Linker most about Mormons is the church's prophetic tradition, which makes the president of the Mormon Church a prophet and the "mouthpiece of God on earth." Linker worries what would happen if the president of the church issued a declaration that was immoral, and he recounts asking students at Brigham Young whether they would "commit murder in the name of their faith" if the president of the church commanded them to do so. According to Linker, "More than one pious young Mormon invariably responded by declaring that he would execute the prophet's commands, no matter what." But would Mitt Romney? This is exactly the kind of hypothetical situation that was posed by opponents of Smith in 1928 or of Kennedy in 1960.
Of course, you can find followers of any American religion who would do crazy things if asked by the president of the church, their minister, their rabbi, or the Pope. And you can find a few crazy ministers and rabbis and a bigoted Pope or two. But that's not the point. The first question is whether the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in America have been inclined to make such immoral pronouncements. They haven't, and there is no evidence they are about to. And the second question is whether Romney has displayed the kind of fanatical commitment that, if they were to do so, would override the moral and political considerations that a politician brings to bear in making decisions. And there is no evidence that Romney--or his father or Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch or Jeff Flake--would. In other words, there is no reason not to give Romney the same pass that voters like Weisberg or Linker gave to Catholic or Jewish candidates.
Linker does make an interesting political point about Romney, which is that, to the extent Romney might like to distance himself from strict adherence to his religion--as he seemed to do during his 1994 senate campaign--he cannot do so now because he is seeking the votes of religious conservatives. That's probably right, but Linker also writes that, in trying to woo religious conservatives, Romney is not longer "soft-pedaling his faith," but that he "embraces it as central to his political strategy." That's not right, at least from the examples Linker gives. By opposing gay marriage and abortion, Romney has not embraced his Mormon faith, but merely the religious conservatism of the Republican Party, which spans Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, as well as Mormons.
There is a deeper point about American religion buried here. Weisberg compares the Mormon faith to Scientology--it's "Scientology plus 125 years." But there's a reason why we think of Scientology as a cult and the Church of Latter-Day Saints as a religion. One joins cults and becomes a follower--that implies a totalizing commitment that colors whatever one does. But one is born into a religious denomination, even one as recent as the Church of Latter-Day Saints. As a member of that community, one is expected to hold certain beliefs and carry out certain rituals, but there is an unspoken distinction between what one does as a member of religion and what one does as a business executive, public school teacher, or politician. Should this distinction apply to an Orthodox Jew and an observant Catholic, but not to a Mormon? Look at the political career of Romney and his father.
Certainly, there is a bridge between religion and politics that politicians cannot safely cross. And that consists in bringing particular, sectarian beliefs openly to bear on major national issues. George W. Bush is often accused of doing so, but he has actually has been fairly careful not to--for instance, in his decision on stem-cell research. It's a presumption of American politics that politicians will not cross this bridge. We've now given this benefit of a doubt to Catholics and Jews. It's time to give it to Mormons like Harry Reid and Mitt Romney.
John B. Judis
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and analysis.
| If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and criticism. |
More From Opinion
Michelle Obama tells how her role as the First Lady has changed her perspective.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 67 CommentsYou see, I have plenty of Mormon friends: Ex-Mormons, mainstream Mormons and even FLDS "the real Mormons".
...and I like them ALL.
Now which point in particular do you want me to eloborate on?
CBS!!! PLEASE, at least try to get the name of the church right... :p
Not to mention make sure your house is in good order and the refrigerator well stocked, just in case Jesus returns and casts your soul into h-ell. Heewah, I'm sure, will enjoy the comforts of your humble abode.
Posted by billpl at 07:35 PM : Jan 10, 2007
bllpl-
It has been so fascinating reading about people's perception of Mormons. Please feel free to elaborate on the above post so that I can at least consider addressing your concerns--if you're interested, that is.
Not to mention make sure your house is in good order and the refrigerator well stocked, just in case Jesus returns and casts your soul into h-ell. Heewah, I'm sure, will enjoy the comforts of your humble abode.
However, there are many good and wonderful people in the world who do not follow these strict health laws, and we love and respect them and their right to choose what to take into their bodies, as long as their choices don't result in illegal activities. We have no desire to force our beliefs on others. And I'm sure Mitt feels the same way. If he wanted to force others to believe as he does, he wouldn't have been voted for in Massachusetts or survived his term as governor there. (And, by the way, I'm not even sure I'll be voting for Mitt, if given the chance. I want to hear what every candidate has to say first.)
So, enjoy your cup of tea! And God Bless!
Occultists have also used the upsidedown cross as recent symbol, but that does not mean that Peter who was crucified upside down should be seen as the founder of that belief system.
Symbols may mean many things to many people - the swastika is another example - Nazisim OR good luck.
As Mormons say they are Christians (without regard to what any one else thinks - the audacity!) and the outside of their temple can be viewed by anyone passing by, then I am led to believe that their use of the pentagram is for Christian and not pagan meaning.
Actually, the idea that man can become as God is, is not so entirely far-fetched as you might think. Even M. Scott Peck suggests in "The Road Less Traveled" that may be the ultimate reason we are here on this earth. And when you think about it--and, of course, you believe in God--doesn't it make sense that a loving Heavenly Father would want His children, whom He had created, loved, taught and nurtured before sending them to Earth, to become like Him--so He can share all of His blessings and knowledge and ability to create with them?
to be continued...
when you lock the doors of your temples
then send your children out
knocking on our doors
"selling" the keys
honestly, what do expect us to say?
Actually, Christianity really was considered a cult at first, wasn't it? At least ther Romans thought so - until their empire converted to it.
Don't look at the salamanders - it's a big business.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 67 Comments