Article VI Blog

This is, in essence, a late addition to today's Reading List. The September 28 edition of The Economist contains an article, "Mitt Romney's problem," subtitled "Religious prejudice may yet undo the Republicans' latest favourite." It's an interesting U.K. perspective on American politics. Excerpt:

As for evangelical Christians, they can be a remarkably pragmatic bunch. They have spent the past few decades building alliances with “people of faith” whom they once regarded as spawn of the devil. And they know a winner when they see one: they happily forgave Reagan his divorce and eccentric theological views. In an ideal world they might prefer a more orthodox man of faith. But if it comes to a choice between Mr Romney and a maverick like Mr McCain or an avowed social liberal like Rudy Giuliani, they may be willing to swallow the Book of Mormon.

We shall see. Meanwhile, I was struck by the story's subtitle and its blunt reference to "religious prejudice." That's refreshing, in a way. Isn't prejudice what we are really talking about, after all is said and done?

Many who are either sympathetic to the view that voting for a Mormon presents at least a moral dilemma for evangelicals (Al Mohler comes to mind), or who actually take the position that an evangelical could never vote for a Mormon (I believe this is a minority within the evangelical community) probably resist the notion that such views are outright religious prejudice. I think it's undeniable, however.

The rejoinder from the anti-Mormon evangelical camp may be that Mormonism is so wrong, so far out of the mainstream, that it is an evangelical's duty to vote against a Mormon for fear of "mainstreaming" a dangerous sect by electing one of its adherents to the highest office in the land. Al Mohler has openly suggested this. In that regard, I found Dr. John Mark Reynolds' analysis compelling:

So if we assume religious traditions are, at least in part, knowledge traditions, then being wrong about religion does matter. How wrong does one have to be before losing credibility in the public square?

Let me propose a few tests and suggest that Mormonism easily passes all of them.

First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people and by a group willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner. . . .

Second, the group in question should not have religious claims that will naturally lead to horrific, or at least far out, public policy. . . .

Third, the group should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant. No group is perfect, but the Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings. . . .

Once a religious organization - a church- meets those tests, it seems to me, an argument against voting for one of the church's members for fear of mainstreaming or legitimizing that church has no other basis than simple religious prejudice.

As always, I remain willing to be proven wrong, or at least vigorously opposed in my argument. But for now, that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, Al Mohler, John Mark Reynolds, The Economist, religious prejudice, religious bigotry, Mormons, evangelicals