RSS Feed MenuBefore a defense of any kind of religious discrimination, one ought to make all of the necessary disclaimers: of course, I oppose government-sponsored discrimination, and I certainly would not support the kind of absurd treatment described by Steven Reinhart in his piece featured below. That being said, there is a legitimate case to be made for judging any candidate for office by his religious convictions.
In late 2007, Mitt Romney made his somewhat-famous speech on religion, where he spoke the following words:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Similarly, Romney has stated: “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it… my faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”
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 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.
I view all religions as equally bizarre and irrational. But mainstream Christianity is often adopted as a cultural guise, meant for purposes of assimilation with the majority. Probe most self-described Christians and you’ll find plenty of deviation from standard dogma. Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.
Lavaux // Dec 2, 2009 at 10:28 am
Glad to read that Mr. Knepper is not going to run for office. I’d vote against him solely on the basis of his atheism because a materialist’s utilitarian ethics can’t appreciate or comprehend the sanctity of human life or the absolute necessity to severely circumscribe the state’s authority to destroy it or fail to protect it whenever possible. Indeed, I view atheism as bizarre and irrational, particularly in view of its stunted and enervating epistemology, which is why I couldn’t trust an atheist politician to fashion a reliably principled accord with American constituents concerning his policy preferences.
Like it or not, Mr. Knepper, Christianity supplies the raw materials from which many of America’s mores and norms are fashioned, which in turn provide the blueprint that legislators, courts and executives are careful to consult when writing her legal codes, case law, rules and regulations. Purely secular justifications, standards and measures can be provided for the architecture of the entire edifice, but we Christians understand and highly value its true origin, and we are pleased to rely on this understanding and value when voting. You’d do well to learn how to live with this fact.
Edward Sisson // Dec 2, 2009 at 11:21 am
I should add that the ability of a society to function under a limited government depends largely on whether the people under that government possess. in their hearts and minds, such principles of self-restraint from force and violence, and of charitable giving of their own property, that there is within the society neither widespread violence that must be suppressed, nor widespread self-centered greed that leaves the poor in need of government to aid them. No religion or philosophy has achieved such effects to the extent idealists desire, but of all that have occurred in history, Christianity as practiced and understood in America has come closest — and this, I submit, has been vital to the success of limited government to be sufficient government in America. The obvious cultural and social value of a peaceable and charitable citizenry explains why humanists and atheists seem constantly to be constructing arguments about how their systems, if generally adopted by the American people in place of Christianity, would produce the same result — a peaceable and charitable citizenry.
durandujam // Dec 3, 2009 at 7:28 am
Alex is right – religion matters. But the beliefs themself don’t matter.
Religious beliefs are not determinist. The church down the block embraces gay marriage, my atheist friend is vehemently pro-life. It’s how the beliefs will affect you decision making that matters.
Romney’s religion influenced his views on marriage, healthcare and abortion. Huckabee’s views did the same. On the other hand, Stark and Obama are probably not very influenced by religion – Stark has none, and none of Obama’s policies are derived from his Christianity.
Romney may think that our rights come from God, Alex may not. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. What difference does it make? Would President Romney mandate belief? Would President Knepper outlaw belief? Of course not. Neither could and, more importantly, neither would. Their beliefs only matter insofar as they change their actions.
I’m not a Mormon. But I’d vote for a Mormon if I happened to have the same view. I’m not a Christian or a Jew. I’ve voted for Christians and Jews before. Is it implausible we could reach the same conclusions from different streams of thought? I think not.
(Oh, and contrary to what many commenters think, atheists and Mormons are not dishonest and are not doomed to ruin this country because they’re “misguided” or don’t understand its “Christian foundation.” For that matter, Christians aren’t a bunch misguided liars either. Our citizens get their values from different places, but all have an ethical and moral code that respects and protects others. Few who go into politics don’t go in for self-promotion. Some get corrupted in office, and many become disillusioned, but most all entered because they felt they could make the country a better place, not just for themselves but for others.)
Mike Huckabee’s Crackup, David Frum, and Religion in Politics | truenorthnewsandcommentary.com | Lowell Brown // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm
[...] this writer at the Frum Forum plows ground that have already been plowed ad nauseam. An atheist, he thinks Romney’s [...]