Continuing our look, that started here and Lowell continued here, at the talking points Hugh Hewitt lays out for ‘06 in Painting the Map Red from an evangelical and Mormon perspective, today we turn to the following:

The Democratic Left Has Declared War On Religion

Hewitt begins this chapter by pointing out the increasing leftward movement of the Democrat party and how that creates problems with much of its traditional base, like Roman Catholics, but the real meat of his contention lies in the later part of the chapter where he examines recent judiciary hearings. Specifically he notes Chuck Schumer’s objections to the Bill Pryor nomination because of Pryor’s “deeply held beliefs.” This, Hewitt contends, and rightly so in my opinion, amounts to a “religious test” in violation of Article 6 of the constitution. He then goes on to examine much of the anti-religious screed that passes for journalism and thought pieces on the left, and particularly the left blogosphere. (Note - this blog is born out of perceived evangelical attempts to do similar things.)

John:  The Evangelical View

As evanglicals and Christians, we are johnny-come-lately to this issue, Mormons historically suffered under immense polticial oppression, but I won’t steal any of Lowell’s thunder here.

This issue is extremely important for Christians. The attacks are very real, but they are not very straightforward. They are either couched in controlled language and presented in dim lights, like Schumer’s comments to Pryor. Or they are dressed up in “separation of church and state” when in actuality they are “shut the church up.” It is vitally important to remember that “separation” does not imply lack of the ability to be one voice amongst the many.

I think the biggest point I could make on this issue is that if, as evangelicals, we disqualify Romney. or any other candidate, SOLELY on the basis of his/her religious affiliation, we are guilty of the same crimes and the Democratic left. We want, deserve, and have a right to a voice in the great debate of government. Our viewpoint will be informed and tempered by our faith, but all we ask is the opportunity to participate and be heard. If our views do not prevail, then so be it. But we want we should not be rejected just because we label ourselves “Christians.”

Why should it be any different for a Mormon? If a candidate like Romney brings viewpoints that we cannot agree with, then he will lose the debate, but such a candidate most definitely should be allowed to bring those viewpoints, and if we fail to allow it, we are no better than our political oppostion.

I would hope that on this issue more than any other, Mormons and evangelicals could find common ground.

Lowell’s Response: The Mormon View

I hope I can make this interesting, because as a Mormon I agree with everything John says. I just don’t see any significant difference in the way Mormons and evangelicals view this issue.

I’ll turn to one example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court later struck down in
City of Boerne v. Flores. (Adding insult to injury, a Reagan appointee, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court in that case.) According to this description, in the City of Boerne decision

the Court declared that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 . . . was unconstitutional, shocking and disappointing many religious liberty advocates. As Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the leading proponents of the bill, commented, “This decision shows the Court’s blindness to a pervasive trend in society, which does not just discriminate against, but is expunging, religion.”

(Senator Hatch of Utah is a devout Mormon, by the way.)

Congress later considered a replacement for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Religious Liberty Act of 1998. The 1998 legislation had the same goal as the earlier one: to require that government demonstrate a “compelling interest” before passing laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion.

During the Senate’s consideration of the 1998 Religious Liberty Act, Elder Dallin Oaks of the Church’s Council of Twelve Apostles addressed the Judiciary Committee. Elder Oaks has been a professor of law at the University of Chicago, President of Brigham Young University, and a Justice of the Utah Supreme Court. His statement before the Judiciary Committee expressed the Church’s view succinctly. An excerpt:

The history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called Mormon or L.D.S.) illustrates why government should have a “compelling interest” before it can pass valid laws to interfere with the free exercise of religion. No other major religious group in America has endured anything comparable to the officially sanctioned persecution imposed upon members of my church in the nineteenth century by federal, state, and local governments. Mormons were driven from state to state, sometimes by direct government action, and finally expelled from the existing borders of the United States, only to be persecuted anew when those borders expanded to include the Territory of Utah. . . .

The Bill of Rights protects principles, not constituencies. The worshipers who need its protection are the beleaguered minorities, not the influential constituent elements of the majority. As a Latter-day Saint, I have a feeling for that reality. Although my church is now among the five largest churches in America, we were once an obscure and unpopular group whose members, including many of my own ancestors, repeatedly fell victim to officially sanctioned persecution because of their religious beliefs and practices. We have special reason to call for Congress and the courts to reaffirm the principle that religious freedom must not be infringed unless clearly required by a “compelling governmental interest.”

It is nothing short of outrageous that the Supreme Court currently extends extraordinary constitutional protection to words that cannot be found within the Constitution, such as the “right to privacy,” while abandoning the vital “compelling governmental interest” requirement that is needed to ensure the effectiveness of the express Bill of Rights language guaranteeing the free exercise of religion. The fact that the Constitution has two express provisions on religion suggests that religious freedom was meant to have a preferred position, but the Supreme Court’s Smith decision has now consigned it to an inferior one. That mistake must be remedied, and S. 2148 is appropriate for that purpose.

Governor Romney has said that his decisions as a public officeholder will not be dictated by his religious beliefs. There can be no doubt, however, that his core beliefs will inform his public policy positions. Regarding the issue of the liberal (and judicial) attack on religion, there is nothing in Romney’s Mormon religion that would be anything but music to the ears of evangelicals who see the issue as John sees it.

Add your two cents, maybe more, in the forum.

Technorati Tags: Democrats, faith, religion, religious test, Mormons, evangelicals, church and state

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Issues | No Comments yet » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
• The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
• Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
• An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
• 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
• Exploring the Line
• So Much for “Adieu”
• I Guess This Is Adieu . . . for Now
• Short and To-The-Point
• Since Lowell Brought It Up…