Mitt Romney's Faith-Based Problem

The New Republic: Religion's Resurgence Won't Let A Mormon Campaign Like Kennedy

(The New Republic)  If it were possible for a politician to sue voters for religious discrimination, Mitt Romney would have an open-and-shut case against the Republican electorate. Here is a man possessing all the known qualifications for the job of GOP presidential nominee - strong communications skills, a successful governorship, total agreement on every issue, Reaganesque hair - and yet he may well be denied it on account of his faith. In a poll released in June, 30 percent of Republicans said they'd be less likely to vote for a Mormon. One conservative televangelist dispensed with the subtlety and warned his flock, "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" These attacks have nothing to do with how Romney would conduct himself as president. They're purely theological. Romney's critics are declaring they couldn't support Romney on the sole basis that they consider Mormonism un-Christian.

Unless you yearn for a Romney presidency - which I don't, particularly - the real significance here is that nobody is challenging the premise of faith-based politics. Romney could argue that his religion is unrelated to how he would conduct himself in office, as John F. Kennedy famously did in 1960. But he hasn't done so, and, by all accounts, he won't. Instead, he is defending himself on theological grounds, trying to persuade social conservatives that Mormonism is more compatible with evangelical Protestantism than they think.

The assumption today, unlike during most of the postwar years, is that a candidate's religion must be an integral component of his political persona. It's not just Republicans, either. For the last few years, Democrats have been frantically attesting to their own religiosity. Mississippi Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Eaves Jr. declared himself to be "on Jesus' side." Political secularism - the notion that elections should not be contested on the basis of candidates' religiosity - is at a modern nadir.

In a country where most Americans say they would never vote for an atheist, the political logic of faith-based politics is undeniable. The moral logic, however, remains unpersuasive. Advocates of faith-based politics take as their premise the inverted assumption that secularism is an assault upon faith. "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square," admonished Barack Obama last summer. The brilliant social conservative Ross Douthat has argued in First Things that the rise of the religious right is merely "the Republican reaction against the Democrats' decision to become the first major party in American history to pander to a sizeable bloc of aggressively secular voters."

"Aggressive" is a strange adjective here, given that secularists are not known for door-to-door proselytizing or massacring members of opposing religious groups. Secular political discourse does not place religious voters or candidates at a disadvantage. It merely denies them an advantage. A religious candidate can campaign on the war in Iraq or health care or gay marriage just as easily as a secular candidate can. But a secular candidate can't run on his faith in the way a religious candidate can. ("Secular," of course, means a lack of political religiosity, rather than a lack of religious belief.) Religion-infused politics places a massive handicap on candidates and voters who are secular or subscribe to minority religions.

The most common accusation against secularism is that it ignores the deeply religious nature of the American public. "As a prudential matter, the case for public reason makes a great deal of sense," argues Douthat. "But one searches American history in vain - from abolitionist polemics down to Martin Luther King's Scripture-saturated speeches - for any evidence of this supposedly ironclad rule being rigorously applied, or applied at all."

When Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan infused their public personas with religiosity, it was somewhat novel. Now it's practically mandatory. It is true that the secular nature of postwar U.S. politics was not the historical rule. It was progress: The America of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was a less hospitable place for religious minorities. The temperance crusaders and the populists, for instance, were religiously steeped mass movements with more than a whiff of, respectively, anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism. The secularism that has generally prevailed since World War II is precisely what has allowed a Catholic to be elected president and a Jew to be nominated as vice president, among other ways that religious tolerance has expanded.

Then we have the civil rights movement. This has become the social right's favorite example - a cuddly historical mascot for anti-secular politics. The argument is that, if you support Martin Luther King -- and who doesn't these days? - you shouldn't have a problem with other kinds of faith-based politics.

It's certainly true that the civil rights movement was rooted in black churches and the language of religious liberation. But this was an artifact of a unique situation. Slavery, Jim Crow, and the one-party white supremacist character of Southern politics had destroyed every other possible outlet for African American politics other than the church. Civil rights activism took the form of preaching because that was the only form black politics could take.

The depth of American religiosity is precisely why secularism is so important. Since religion is premised on faith, theological disputes cannot be settled through public reason. Even the most vicious public policy disputes get settled over time. (Americans now agree on slavery and greenback currency.)But we're no closer to consensus on the divinity of Jesus than we were 200 years ago.

Not long ago, John McCain declared that, "since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know has a solid grounding in my faith." GOP Representatives Virgil Goode and Bill Sali, and conservative talk show host Dennis Prager, have railed against Muslims and Hindus offering their own prayers in Congress. I'm sure most advocates of faith-based politics would abhor this sort of discrimination. But it's really just the natural conclusion from the premise of faith-based politics: If it makes sense to support public figures because they share our religious beliefs, then it also makes sense to oppose public figures who don't.

[joshe2000]

If we start judging candidates on what they believe in (doctrine) or what church they belong to, than how can a Catholic vote for a Baptist? Some Baptist, Born-again, non-denominational churches believe that Catholics aren%u2019t Christians. Some of them have called them a cult as well. How can a Baptist vote for a Catholic? The Catholic Church (Vatican) has reaffirmed its'' doctrinal statement in July of this year(2007) that it is the ONE true church of Christ. They have said that the Protestants (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc) cannot claim to be a part of the church of Christ because they do not have apostolic succession. How can a Christian vote for a Buddhist or a Hindu when these 2 religions believe in reincarnation. How can an athetist, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu vote for a Christian who believes (doctrine) that they will go to hell? How can a Mormon vote for a born-again Christian whose doctrine believes that they are not Christiian, are not saved and will go to hell as well? It%u2019s because most individuals do not judge the individual (and they should not) by some particular believes and or doctrines of their faith, but by their actions. How did they live their life? How did they treat others/their spouse/family? How did they manage others? How did they manage their business? How did they manage government?, etc. That''s the way most Americans will be voting for our next American President. Elect Willard Mitt Romney our next American President.

[joshe2000]

The Mormon Factor is a none issue #1:
After all is said and done, The American people will elect the best qualified candidate to lead our great country. Whenever and wherever people have met Mitt Romney his polls numbers have gone up. Many have found him to be articulate, optimistic, very energetic, very intelligent, a leader with a vision, a leader with family values, a leader with integrity in his marriage, a leader with experience, a leader that can turn things around for the good, and a leader that will bring real opportunities to millions of Americans. He will not be beholdened to The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints in making policies for our great nation. He will be beholdened to the American people. Most people will judge him not on what he believes or not believes in, but on his actions. How did he live his life?, is he overall a good person?, did he honor his marriage and his family?, how did he manage people?, how did he manage government?, etc.

[guysdigdirt]

I guess you can say a person is who they are due to what they believe, but you should find out who a person is before you judge them, not just what religion someone is, or is not.

[quatrops]

When I responded to guysdigdirt @ 10:00 I had not yet seen his earlier post 3:01 11/21 in which he makes the point that I made later about his assertion that a "little bit" of misogyny was appropriate when it came to the role of women in heirarchical positions in religious groups.

I.e., many religious arguments end up with the self-negating question, "who gets to decide?"

American Heritage''s brief definition of misogyny is, "hatred of women". Hatred is appropriate? Hatred is "OK"?

There is NOTHING about the physical, mental, psychic, or spiritual makeup of a woman that would prevent her from functioning as a Pope, an RC priest, or a Grand Whatever of the Morman church. It is the paternalistic, misogynistic structure and history of those organizations that limits the contribution that certain women might make. To suggest otherwise is absurd!

[juwboy]

guysdigdirt:

If you made it clear from the VERY BEGINNING of a Comment that you are quoting e.g. by the use of quotation marks (as I do), there would be lesss likelihood of you being misinterpreted.

[quatrops]

Guysdigsirt @ 3:18 has announced to all assembled that there are just "some things" a woman can''t do (besides be a father, by which I guess he means impregnating an egg, but I''m not really sure). In addition, there are some "roles" they simply can''t fill.

He doesn''t say who gets to decide what those roles are, but reading between the lines,I think we can safely guess . . . SURPRISE . . SURPRISE ... WHY IT''S GUYSDIGDIRT HIMSELF! ! !

Nor does he specify the roles from which he would exclude women. It''s such FUN that he let''s us guess ! ! Okay, let''s try! Let me see . . Ahhhhhhhh. . POPE? . . . AYATOLLA(sp?) Whatshername? . . . ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST? . . . HEAD OF THE MORMAN CHURCH?

Why, look! ! All of them are religious authority figures! ! But I''m sure there must be others. Oh DO share them with us Guy (may I call you "Guy"?)

[iamanamerica]

What?...The "Holy Trinity" was a concoction of the Nicene Creed from the 4th century AD. That is well documented. I guess the followers of Christ before that must not have been Christians either.

Who made it your job to decide someone else''s faith?

[guysdigdirt]

Maybe we should institute an intelligence test - this would definitely lead to a Demo landslide.
Posted by afmca

That is an oxymoron, if there were an intelligent Democrat, they would be republicans.

[guysdigdirt]

guysdigdirt said:

"They are just not Christians. They do not believe in the Holy Trinity, God Three-In-One".
Posted by juwboy

guysdigdirt argued against that, I did not say it.

[guysdigdirt]

Perhaps it is time for candidates to be asked to denounce misogyny if it is part of their religious affiliation.
Posted by Quatrops

that would assume that misogyny is a bad thing in all situations, if I understand correctly you assume it is a bad thing and well as limiting marriage to one man and one woman a bad thing. I disagree with you on both points. There are things only a man should do and be and things only a woman should do and be. A woman cannot be a father, no matter how much your beliefs say they can, neither can a man be a mother. Get used to the fact that those are facts, not open to disagreement. There are other roles only able to be filled by a man or a woman, depending on the role.