I read Anderson’s post with interest. He seems to argue that in general a candidate’s faith is a legitimate subject of public inquiry because, in some religions, there are aspects that could threaten American freedoms and traditions. He therefore found Romney’s “Faith in America” speech defective when Romney suggested the principle of religious tolerance does not require candidates to explain their religion. Anderson doesn’t discuss John F. Kennedy’s landmark 1960 speech on the same subject, but I’m guessing he would find it defective for the same reason.

Strictly speaking, I agree in theory that religion can be a legitimate political subject. But I would add this qualification: a candidate’s faith is a legitimate subject if there are reasonable grounds to link his faith to likely government actions that would infringe upon established freedoms. That’s a very big if, especially for a country that prides itself on religious freedom. Those who whip up fears of a candidate’s religion without producing evidence are akin to conspiracy lunatics and/or bigots, in my opinion. The onus is on the questioners (not the candidate) for providing the evidence. In Romney’s case – and I think Anderson would agree – there is no reason to believe 21st century Mormonism poses a risk to government.

But there’s a bigger issue that Anderson doesn’t address. The campaign events that pressured Romney to give the speech in the first place were fundamentally unfair, and Romney was all but doomed to lose ground no matter what he said. To illustrate, suppose a candidate is vegetarian, and his opponent is an omnivore. The rival starts a whispering campaign among cattle ranchers that our candidate is fundamentally unfit for office because he is a vegetarian. After all, he asks, if vegetarians arrive at such obviously wrong conclusions about diet, how can we trust them on political matters? (“I don’t know much about vegetarians, but don’t they believe…?”) The whispering leads to public pressure, and our candidate feels compelled to give a speech to squelch the rumors. But what can he say? He can’t say vegetarians have a diet just like other Americans because they don’t. (In fact, whose diet is exactly like all other Americans?) So our candidate argues boldly that diet is irrelevant and shouldn’t be a campaign issue at all. He concludes by saying despite his peculiar diet, he is still a mainstream American. But no matter what he says, our candidate loses ground because he is essentially being asked to prove he isn’t crazy. How fair is that? And more to the point, the real issue isn’t whether vegetarianism or Mormonism disqualifies someone from office, but whether Americans ‘walk the talk’ when they claim to respect and protect diversity.

As Kennedy said in 1960,

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

What is it about Mormons that these people find so repulsive? OK, they have theological differences. Lots of people do. But while others may have doctrinal differences, they don’t spit when saying “Mormon”. I guess I should be satisfied that they didn’t cut and paste from what I said above – exactly.

You know, I really wanted to be able to say that I had spoken with someone from the campaign and was received warmly. And I was, by the person who answered the phone. She was sweet and gracious. I could not have spoken with a nicer person. She is a credit to the Sharron. However, with regards to the other guy, the spokesman, I am extremely disappointed that a fellow conservative Republican would behave so boorishly over an issue that is so important to his candidate’s bid for election. Is that the way it is in election campaigns? I haven’t been around any so I don’t know. May he is representative of the breed. Someone with more experience will have to answer that.

“Mr. Adams
I spoke with your campaign aid this morning and discussed a comment Sharron was credited with making about the LDS faith. So far I have been unable to track it down beyond just what was previously written in the news. I am going to comment about it on article6 blog and want to make certain I am correct in stating Sharron’s position. I am not looking for quotes from the campaign but rather just confirmation that what I understand is accurate. Here is what I will post. I may add personal observations but I want to be accurate in what you folks say.

I just talked with Sharron Angles campaign and was assured that she has made no disparaging remarks about Mormons and believes that all people have an equal right to believe what they will and that anything to the contrary is not true. I was told she has many LDS supporters and continues to have a good relationship with them. She stands behind her belief that she has been called by God to be active in politics.

Usually, the owners of the blog review and post comments later in the day so it may be afternoon or evening before it shows up if they choose to post what I submit. I hope you will find my comments to be accurate. If not please feel free to contact me and I will make every effort to correct anything I got wrong.”

I bring this up because the subject seems to mystify most outsiders and maybe some members too. It isn’t an easy subject to understand in its totality, even for experienced Mormons. But the fundamentals can be understood, enough for most observers I believe. John’s piece above refers to Kenneth Anderson’s views about religion playing an import part in a candidates political profile. Maybe it should. I don’t know. But whatever place religion plays, it out to be correctly understood and LDS theology is not. If it is going to be a part of discourse then we Mormons should do what we can to clarify misunderstandings. Interested readers can go to to read the Church’s official view of the subject.

It was that religiously diverse group who placed in the body of the Constitution an explicit prohibition on using a religious test to bar any person from Federal office, and who added the First Amendment to make it clear that the specific religious affiliation of an elected official was irrelevant precisely because no one in the Federal government, legislative, executive or judicial, was empowered to interfere with the religious beliefs and practices of any citizen or congregation.

Britain and other European nations have heads of state (constitutional monarchs) serving as the heads of national churches. If they retired those hereditary rulers (and their families) and gave all their duties to elected presidents or prime ministers, it might be relevant whether the candidate was in fact a member of the church which he or she was being elected to preside over. But that is not the American system. Despite the traditions of religious observances encouraged by presidents (like Thanksgiving), the religion of the president is irrelevant because the Constitution denies him or her any power over churches or their members as such.

Given this arrangement, one that the Founders explicitly created, the burden of proof is on someone who claims that some element of a candidate’s religion implicates public policy, to come forward with specific proof that the candidate’s denomination is itself seeking to play an improper, coercive role in public policy, beyond what all community organizations are allowed to do as part of free speech.

I think the statements of President Obama’s former pastor are in a separate category. Declaring to a group of people sentiments like “God D— America” or “Bomb D— America” is offensive whether it is said in church by a minister or at a cocktail party by a former domestic terrorist, and it is a legitimate inquiry as to whether the candidate shares those sentiments, and if he says he does not, as to why he did nothing to distance himself from them as an example to others among his associates so they would not assume, based on his silence, that he endorsed such unusual and provocative assertions.

Meanwhile, a reader notes this pic of the White House press corps , and calls it “as diverse as an Osmond Family reunion.” But that’s unfair, since the Osmonds represent a religious minority that probably isn’t welcome in the White House press corps.

Not particularly substantive; but a nice quip nonetheless.