On Politicians Taking Orders from Their Religious Leaders

8 Responses to “On Politicians Taking Orders from Their Religious Leaders”

1. Ralph on 04 May 2006 at 11:39 am #

   I am Jewish. Growing up in Phoenix, Arizona, I had many Mormon friends. At that time, the state was rock-ribbled conservative and heavily Republican. Nonetheless–and I recognize that times have changed–every Mormon family that I knew was politically liberal and voted Democratic. The exemplars of liberal Democratic Mormons in Arizona were the Udall clan, including Stewart Udall, who was President Kennedy’s Secretary of the Interior, and Mo Udall, a career Democratic member of Congress, and certainly a liberal. I believe that there currently are two Udalls in Congress although not from Arizona), and both are Democrats. Therefore the stereotype of conservative Republican footsoldiers taking their orders from the Church President is obviously inaccurate.

   I am sensitive to this canard because it is frequently employed against Jews, who are accused of dual loyalty due to sympathy with Israel.

   However, there is an elephant in the room that no one has mentioned. The hostility to Mitt Romney is coming largely from Christian conservatives, not from the left, and it is not based on his political views, or any suspicion that Romney is politically enslaved to the Church Elders.

   Rather, let’s face it, their hostility is based on the doctrinal rejection of Mormonism by orthodox Christians–including both Protestants and Catholics–who feel that it is not a Christian sect. That is of course a purely religious test and flies in the face of Article 6.

   No one questions the right of Christians, Jews or Buddhists, for that matter, to reject the doctrines of the Mormon Church. However, that discussion and those reservations must remain in the religious sphere. The Constitution bans them from consideration in the selection of those who will govern our nation. Therefore, the only solution is for these Christian conservative opponents of Romney to be honest and self-critical, and ask themselves whether they differ from him on any substantive political issue, or are they placing allowing their doctrinal opposition to Mormonism to trump the Constitution.

2. drex davis on 04 May 2006 at 2:48 pm #

   As a member of the LDS church, my first reaciont to this blog was to note that it had nothing to do with the LDS Church’s Sixth article of faith, but rather with the 12th Article, and asked myself if it wouldn’t be more appropriately be named Article 12 Blog?

   The 12the article of faith reads:

   We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

   Turning this post on its head, under the 6th article what would it mean to say that the LDS Church (including its President) has a belief that in some sense purports to defer to Presidential authority?

   What would that mean to the LDS church and its authority structure if there were an LDS President? What kind of deference would the CHURCH have to give, as opposed to the other way around? And where an LDS President might issue decree the LDS church opposes, what does it mean to be “subject” to a President under the meaning of Article of Faith #12.

   For those interested, here’s a link to all 13 of the articles of faith.

   http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1

3. JohnS on 04 May 2006 at 3:38 pm #

   This is Lowell’s post, so these are really his comments to respond to; however, for clarification “Article 6″ refers to Article 6 of the United States Consitution whcih specifically prohibits a “religious test” as qualification for elective office.

4. marbon on 04 May 2006 at 7:36 pm #

   Wow! I think that this blog is a great idea to hash out these issues, especially since Mitt Romney’s religion will weigh heavily on potential voters’ minds.

   I think the “real” issue with Mitt’s potential presidency is not that Evangelicals fear he will take orders from the LDS church, but they fear that in some way his religion will look less weird to some and potentially more appealing to the general public. Even though one may not always approve of the policy or job performance of the POTUS, on some level, the POTUS commands a certain level of respect for the majority of Americans and a good portion of Evangelicals (not sure how many) feel that anyone associated with that particular religion should not be afforded that level of respect. It will make it difficult for them preach from their pulpits about the evils of Mormonism if the leader of the free world is currently one.

   But in reality, will this happen if Mitt Romney becomes the POTUS? Not by a long shot! As a fellow Mormon, I believe that there must be an opposition in all things. There maybe a positive effect towards Mormons, but I believe there will be an equal measure of negativity.

   In today’s political environment, it so easy to blame anything on the President for anything that is wrong in the world. For example, back in the 80’s (I forget which year) Ronald Reagan was blamed by some crazy scientist (I forget who) for causing a tornado! Now imagine what will happen to Mitt Romney. Any issue, problem, political scandal or disaster will be blamed on him and his Faith! It will be muttered by some that these problems and scandals are really caused by the Mormons! A series of Michael Moore types will be making movie documentaries about any nasty thing they can distort to make Mormons look evil and corrupt. This would be totally unfair, and as a Mormon, I hope Mitt does not even get close to the Republican nomination nor does he become the POTUS for this very reason. It is not that I am ashamed of my faith–not in the least (We aren’t perfect but we try hard) nor do I think that Mitt Romney is not the best qualified (I think he is), but in reality I fear that the liberal media and a minority of Evangelicals (yet influential) will forge together to relentlessly attack us.

   What a loss! America loses the option of electing a well-qualified leader because of prejudice and a weird, almost imperceptible, inferiority complex (I don’t think less of anyone because of their beliefs. I believe that everyone has inherit worth that no one can take away!).

   But yet there is something undeniable about the American experiment of democracy. In our common history, hasn’t it been shown that America tends to rise above this? Why? Why did America overcome slavery, give women the right to vote, become increasingly tolerant toward private religious freedom (separation of church and state is a different issue), become a country where civil rights are enshrined, and become a powerful force for good in the world? Of course all of these challenges were hard and were difficult to overcome but America has made significant achievements in all of these areas. I think it all starts with the underlying spirit of our Constitution.

   The Constitution starts out with the phrase “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…” This means to me that all of us are in this American experiment together. It means that centuries of Europe’s approach of Kings, Monoliths, and state-enforced religion was antithetical to liberty, freedom, and man’s pursuit of happiness. And the 13 colonies of various backgrounds, including religious, uniformly felt since God himself does not compel man’s beliefs then it was not government’s place to do so. It means we will have more Liberty as a society as a whole if we learn to respect one’s inherit goodness and goodwill regardless if we feel someone’s political or religious views are misguided.

   Is this the reason why Democracy does not flourish in the Middle East? Do Muslims feel they are undermining their faith if they show other beliefs an amount of tolerance? Look at what is happening in Iraq. They are having troubles forming an unity because of the deep mistrust each religious group has for each other. Are we being hypocritical by shouting the principles of Democracy to this part of the world while at the same time American applies a religious test at home?

5. LowellB on 04 May 2006 at 10:37 pm #

   Drex Davis: John is correct; this blog is not about the 6th Article of Faith.

   Marbon: Your thoughts are very interesting, but I don’t share your belief that evangelicals think a Romney presidency would confer legitimacy on his religion. Frankly, although a Romney candidacy would meet opposition from some parts of the evangelical movement (and this blog is an effort to inform that discussion), if nominated Romney will be attacked much more viciously from the left than from anyone on the right.

6. marbon on 05 May 2006 at 9:45 am #

   Perhaps my views are wrong and prejudiced on how a minority of Evangelicals would react, which I sincerely hope that I am, but in reality as things get closer, then I think Mitt and his Faith will see some increasingly nasty attacks. I do not doubt that the Left will use it to their advantage, because they will tear down any nominee from the Republican party. However, the attacks of the Left are twice as effective if there is no push-back from the Right which would be the case if there is tepid support from the Evangelicals. Why would they champion Mitt if they felt it would subtly undermine their Faith?

   It would be a small miracle, but the only way I see Mitt overcoming this is to somehow get the overwhelming portion of the non-extremists (I am not implying a negative or positive connotation of extremists) on his side. Similar to what I mentioned before, he should make the weakness of his candidacy into a strength, i.e. voting for Mitt, a Mormon, affirms the founding purpose of America, the spirit of the Constitution and that religious tolerance makes America a stronger Democracy not a weaker one, etc.

7. fromouteast on 05 May 2006 at 10:41 am #

   Marbon and Lowell,

   Let me just say that I am a non-denominational Protestant and huge supporter of a Mitt Romney Presidency. I totally support Romney, 100%. He is a brilliant, kind, and generous man. He is a great businessman (with a proven track record), an excellent governor for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and a wonderful diplomat with no skeletons in the closet. He doesn’t drink. He doesn’t smoke. He doesn’t even curse. And most of all, he understands the importance of the War vs Terrorism. He would make a tremendous leader of the free world, (and maybe the free world doesn’t deserve him?) Have we ever had a college Valedictorian elected President? Who could say?

   That said I understand very clearly why some of the Evangelicals are having a hard time with Mitt and wouldn’t vote for the man (under any circumstances.) Their “Fears of a Romney Presidency” (much that they are) are rooted in two things primarily: the beliefs and Faith of the LDS church, and their extreme hatred of the man, Joseph Smith (the founding prophet.)

   Evangelicals believe with all their heart that Jesus Christ was born, lived 33 years, and died on the Cross to save all mankind from eternal damnation. But more than that, they don’t believe that the Savior ever ventured more than 400-500 miles from his place of birth. This “Geography aspect towards Christ’s ministry” is a critical, fundamental, break point that Evangelicals have with Mormons (a break point that they wouldn’t have with Catholics, Jews, or even Muslims, as none of the teachings in those Faiths place the Son of God anywhere that Evangelicals think he couldn’t have been.) The thought of a religion where the followers believe that Christ walked again after his resurrection on the North American Continent, is nothing more than a “cult.” To them, that Faith is a total Heresy and that is part of the reason why they could never cast their Presidential ballot for Mitt (right or wrong.) They think they would be electing an ignorant, fool.

   As far as Joseph Smith goes, they can’t get past the Polygamy aspect of the founder of the LDS Church. They see the man as a sexual pervert, a man who took several (underage) wives, for his own perverted desires. Then, he created a religion that excused that behavior for his own selfish lust. Evangelicals also see Smith as a man who conned honest farmers and businessmen (in the early 19th Century) into donating their land and property to Joseph Smith’s Church, which to them means, right into Joseph Smith’s pocket. This is a huge reason why Mitt might be unelectable to Evangelicals.

   If Mitt want’s to reduce that 17% of voters that couldn’t vote for him BECAUSE of his Faith, I think he needs to explain very clearly and vividly to the public what he agrees with and what he doesn’t with respect to Joseph Smith. He also needs to explain to the public WHY he has his Faith that Christ walked in the Americas (in the “latter days”.) He needs to do this if he wants to be elected. He may not want to, but I think he has to because he can not win the Presidency without every single Southern State.

8. marbon on 05 May 2006 at 8:38 pm #

   I think that the %17 number is for a generic Mormon candidate. When the quality of the candidate is factored I think that number is in the 8’s or 9’s. That is still a significant number and it would make his candidacy iffy. Not impossible or unlikely but it would require alot of things to happen in his favor.

   Now, there is no way that Mitt is going to win over all of the Christian vote. He has to be who is he without being overtly offensive that is the only effective stategy I can imagine. Plain and simple he has trust in the honesty and goodness of the Christian voter and that they will judge him on the content of his character, his experience, and his capacity.

   Also, as a side-note: If one’s purity of religious beliefs is a sign of smartness or wisdom then I think we are all fools because we are all learning, have errors in us, and we can all grow in the love of Christ.

Trackback URI |