RSS Feed Menu
Before 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.
Pete Stark is the only openly atheist representative in Congress. However:
“A representative of the Secular Coalition for America told Stark that he had interviewed 21 US representatives who said they were nonbelievers but were unwilling to go public with that.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/22/for_congressman_humanism_matters/
Evidently atheism has influenced these congresspeople to be liars about their deepest beliefs. If they can lie about something so profound as their nonbelief in God, what else do they lie to us about?
“Will anyone ask Mitt Romney about the oddities of the dogma of the Mormon Church?”
To a significant extent, that already happened last cycle.
And I guarantee, and would be willing to bet my house, that in the next cycle we will all be exhaustively “educated” by an array of shadowy 527s, by the mainstream media, and perhaps even by opposition surrogates or, if they are sufficiently emboldened, by candidates themselves, on every jot and tittle of Mormon belief and practice, past and present, that sounds or seems odd or threatening, especially if Romney gets the nomination.
I believe you have a valid argument, in that a candidate’s religious views of necessity shapes his/her world view, and thereby is a valid ground for questioning. However, shouldn’t those questions be tied closely to policy? If Romney believes that in the next life he can become like God is, how would that in any way effect his policies? We need to be careful that it is the candidate’s fitness for office and not his/her religion that is really being debated.
Alex,
No argument about one’s religious beliefs shaping his world view. But this Imust question:
“To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making?
What can we point to, in Romney’s governing record/style and his business decisions, that has been affected by his religious views (bizarre as they are) in a way that has had a negative impact on either his constituency or his business dealings?
Well, we know that someone’s alleged faith can have a terrific influence on their decision making, agenda setting and advocating for policy change.
Take Obama Messiah. Here is a guy who spent 2 decades in the pew of a church that taught, preached and practiced a kind of racially charged black liberation theology that made Lousi Farrakhan & the Nation of Islam look like a moderate viewpoint.
Here is a guy –Obama– who lived next to, drank with, served on public boards and allowed his impressionable children to be watched over and indoctrinated by a pair of anti-American, convicted domestic terrorists and rabid radicals who preached their political beliefs like it was a religion.
And now we have the most radical, far Left liberal president in the Country’s history taking America on a short leash toward socialistic communism.
I guess it is fair to inquire what a person’s faith has to do with his decision making. In Obama Messiah’s case, everything it seems.
Frankly, I liked him a whole lot better when he was a muslim.
kelseykrogers,
You make an excellent point and I agree with the thrust of your post. However, if a candidate clams religion (Mormonism or any other one) is an integral part of such fundamentally civic concepts as freedom and the social contract, then the electorate has every right to ask religious questions that aren’t linked to specific policies.
MI-GOP
“I guess it is fair to inquire what a person’s faith has to do with his decision making. In Obama Messiah’s case, everything it seems.”
“Everything,” huh? Considering that EVERYTHING that your Messiah has done was influenced by his “radical” black-supremacist church, you’d think that you’d mention at least one policy or position where this influence on your Messiah can be readily identified.
Also – “allowed his impressionable children…blahblahblah” – what total garbage. I guess when you have no ammo, you start throwing sh!t.
“Also – “allowed his impressionable children…blahblahblah” – what total garbage. I guess when you have no ammo, you start throwing sh!t.”
it seems you know a few things about the latter, sparty? tossing sh!t, i mean
i think mrs palin was right when she said she would have made an issue of mr obama’s character to leave his very young children in the arms of bill ayers and his radical, bomb-throwing wife for more than a few nights of fun on the town for mr and mrs obama. it goes to responsible parenting -something mrs palin has earned our kudos for… i don’t agree that his religion or mr romney’s religion is an appropriate subject for political scrutiny except to the left and democrats who challenge anyone of faith with suspicion.
we need to be honest. democrats don’t generally believe in God and find people of faith to be fatally flawed in their intellect because, to democrats, smart people don’t believe in God… they put their trust in science. even mr obama said, while making a run for the illinois senate, he didn’t think there was an afterlife… he thought heaven and hell was what we make of our time on earth… he wasn’t a christian anymore than i am a muslim… in fact, with that attitude, he probably isn’t a muslim either.
So my belief that everything comes from god is bizarre and irrational.
And your belief that everything comes from nothing is what?
roflmmfao
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
This is why it is very important to closely examine a candidates belief system. That elitist religious snob lost my vote right there. Ask the Catholic Church about religion and freedom: the Inquisition, the excommunication of Galileo, the witch trials and burnings, modern priest pedophilia and the Church’s protection of it, suppression of condoms which would help prevent AIDS. Seems to me the opposite is true–true freedom cannot be had under religion.
Huck must really be in deep shit…The Huckabots are already going to work on Romney. Mr. Knepper it would be wise for fork tongued zealots like yourself to remember that NO REPUBLICAN will get elected without the Mormon vote.
Harry Reid is an active Mormon. How come no one seems to ask these very same questions or make these very same comments about him?
Harry Reid has held much more power over the American people than Romney has and I don’t hear one peep from you same people.
You seem to hold a higher standard for someone that you disagree with. Then you roll him around in it and fire at him even more when he finally tries to defend himself. He can’t ever win with you no matter how squeaky clean he is or how common sense his politics are.
Mormonism is an issue with him because you have and continue to make it one. No one seems to have a problem with other high profile Mormons because of their religion such as Harry Reid, Orin Hatch and others.
Let’s face it – the LDS Church is one of the fastest growing Christian religions in the world today. It is mainstream and no longer has “cult” status around any conscientious thinking person. Deal with it.
In fact, why don’t you actually look into it instead of listening to some atheist tell you what he thinks his opinion is about it. Maybe you just might be surprised about how much good the LDS have actually done in the world. There is good and bad in every religion – why dwell on the negative when there is so much more good?
This was not a statement issued by the GOP. There are a number of the names of the primary signers of this document whose politics are fairly liberal outside of the social issues, and no doubt a number of them voted for Obama.
This was a statement issued by Christian leaders who define the term “Christian” as one who believes in the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and they were affirming the historic Christian tradition on marriage, and life. It would have been a bit incongruous to have included Mormons in such an appeal to historic Christian tradition… particularly on the issue of marriage.
That does not mean that we cannot work with Mormons, or Jews, or Muslims who are broadly share our values… but this was a religious affirmation, not a matter of posturing for the next election cycle.
Also, it is simply untrue to claim that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the Trinity. George Washington was a lifelong member in good-standing of the Anglican Church. Abraham Lincoln was a skeptic in his younger days, but became a very fervent Christian later in life, as anyone reading his speeches could guess, and he regularly attended a Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C. There is no reason to believe that either of them rejected a doctrine considered essential in both of their Churches.
It’s great to see that someone has the mental fortitude to address this issue, even if it’s an atheist. If Romney is so easily fooled by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), then how could we possibly believe that Romney wouldn’t be fooled by any other average huckster? I could not trust the judgment of Mitt Romney, no way. It’s surprising that more women don’t take issue with someone who professes to believe in a polygamist pedophile who had 24 wives. Hey, maybe we need an Anti Polygamist Pedophile Prophet Society. We could call it A3PS. When someone like that professes to have a “new message from god”, just laugh and walk away because that IS NOT a good man.
Judge Romney……..by his works. The proofs in the pudding boys. Say what you want about Mormons, but at the end of the day, they get things done. You guys can sit around and hash and re-hash what level of Christian orthodoxy is going to be required to be included in the Party, but in the mean time the Mormons are focused on making a difference. I think it was MLK that said, “Don’t tell me you’re a Christian, let me figure it out on my own.” I’m sure Romney has blemishes, but his list of accomplishments is quite long. When people go back to work, prosperity returns, and our enemies once again fear us, I don’t think people are going to care if Romney’s belief’s our not in line with “historic Christian doctrine”.
Yeah. Good.
So you’re saying that his statement is wrong. Fine.
Did you want to point out a practical example of a stable free society being founded by irreligious people? I can think of several examples of attempted free societies being founded that way, and failing…
He’s making a point that he thinks is valid. If you want to refute it, fine. If you think it fails intrinsically, you’re being lazy.
By the way, your knee-jerk dismissal of religion and those who espouse it? It displays a lack of rigor and a simplistic worldview. You need to get out more.
As for me, I think that some of the primary tenets of Mormon doctrine would be great things to find in a candidate.
Loyalty, tolerance, love of all mankind, respect for rule of law, integrity, hard work, marital fidelity, familial priority, filial piety, fiscal discipline, physical fitness, preparedness, maximal education, sobriety, hopefulness, religious tolerance, desire for justice, involvement in community, willingness to change course and admit fault when wrong…
These are all things that are drilled into LDS members. The fringe-y stuff that people hold up (which makes no sense, out of context) is not really relevant. Why don’t you have a look at the core values, and see if any of them might be desirable?
Why should anyone trust an atheist? You answer to no one.
While his talent for writing is perhaps beyond his years, I don’t know how involved with the day-to-day the poster was during the last primary, so he may have missed out on the Romney religious vetting that was going on. Most of us have been there, done that. Many may have already moved on, the dead horse has already been beaten, exception being those who are hysterically anti-Mormon, such as Val.
Romney didn’t just appear suddenly out of nowhere. He has a track record as governor, turned around the Olympics, and was incredibly successful at Bain, which many underestimate who are not familiar with that industry. Each step along the way his judgement, capabilities, and acument have been demonstrated. There have been thousands of opportunities for his religion to get in the way and for the media, the bashers on the right, and everyone else to view and expose. If it was going to happen in the way some claim to fear, it would have happened already. But no, he has been exceptionally successful by the standards of the world and country regardless of whether one agrees with his political views.
I think such biased and irrational statements say more about the writer than they do about the candidate.
Lessons from the Huckabee Flameout, and The World According to David Frum | Article VI Blog | Lowell Brown // Dec 2, 2009 at 2:04 am
[...] this writer at the Frum Forum plows ground that have already been plowed ad nauseam. An atheist, he thinks Romney’s [...]
Alex,
Judge a man by his policies and actions. Not by his faith.
I don’t judge atheists on what could easily be seen as a lack of morals. Obviously, it would be incredibly immature to think such a thing. I judge any person (atheist, agnostic or religious) on policies, and then decide if I think they’re best for the nation.
And it is equally immature for you to say “Mormons have a different view of the afterlife. I find it strange. This is important in judging him as a politician.” What in the world does that have to do with policy? Absolutely nothing.
And why is it damning for Romney to say that free societies must have religion, and religion must insist on free societies? What is wrong about that? And then to juxtapose that with Romney saying he’ll be true to his beliefs? That’s a problem to you? Sheesh.
(And yes, you absolutely fit my definition of bigot. You, of course, will deny it. But then, how many people admit to being a bigot? Perhaps others might just be on to something when they label you this way.)
I agree that one should consider a person’s religious beliefs in determining what might underly policy decisions while in office. But Alex, your own atheism is a religion, the most irrational of all religions, and the one that requires the most faith – faith in ‘chance’, which is nothing at all. How do you come up with any standard from which to judge other people? Where do you get that standard? Also, given your materialist world view, where do you get the non material ‘laws’ of logic? Where do you get meaning at all? How do I discern a difference between the meaninglessness of a lightening strike and the electrical signals in your brain. Think about it. You fail by your own standard.
Did anybody ask Obama about his religion and church for 20 years? No they didn’t. The press decided it wasn’t important. Now we are all paying the price. So leave religion out of it.
Alex,
You are not an athiest. You are an anti-theist. Homebrook does a good job pointing out the religiosity of anti-theists such as yourself.
Religions are not perfect, they are built upon revelation (whether one believes in that or not is wholly up to themselves, in Locke’s America) by men with the help of thier reason… and thus will be faulty. Because men are faulty. You are no better than the bigots who said JFK would be taking direct orders from the Pope if he became president.
Athens vs. Jeruselem. Reason v. Revelation… the good thing about the west is that we have these tensions and can discuss them and their influence
Should Romney Be Judged By His Religion? » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog // Dec 2, 2009 at 10:01 am
[...] 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 [...]
Romney’s comment that “Freedom requires religion” is squarely within the oldest American traditions, reflecting the sentiments of George Washington in his Farewell Address, of John Adams, of Thomas Jefferson, of Abraham Lincoln, of Noah Webster, and of many courts.
A website on separation of church and state, in its “list of flawed quotes,” see http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/flawq.htm
has an excellent list of accurate quotes, taking issue not with what the speakers said, but rather, with arguments advanced by some advocates today that the speakers’ words are useful in understanding the Constitutional power of the federal government to support religion.
But the general sentiment that freedom requires religion, even if not applicable to understanding the powers of the federal government, has a broader meaning about the health of the society of which the government is but a part. One can certainly and reasonably argue whether freedom does or does not require religion, but it is not reasonable to argue that Romney’s statement is new, unusual, or against the grain of American tradition.
Moreover, given that the historical speakers (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln) include some of our greatest Presidents, it would appear that a belief that freedom requires religion ought to be taken as a signifier of a potentially good President, rather than a warning-flag of a potentially bad President.
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.
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.
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 [...]