Posted on 02/14/2008 4:34:07 AM PST by Kaslin
Now that Mitt Romney is out of the presidential race, it’s the perfect time to discuss what we should have learned from all the chatter about his faith. The questions and answers relating to faith and holding public office are far more important than one candidate.
If you ask almost any American where the Constitution provides for religious liberty, what are you likely to hear? The First Amendment. There, in words many of us know by heart, we read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
But there’s another important reference to religion in our Constitution. Considering the vitriolic manner in which our modern media culture treats faith in general, though, if you haven’t read the Constitution yourself, you probably don’t even know it’s there.
Article 6, Clause 3 states: “… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” That phrase, and the troubled intersection of private faith and public office, is the subject of a fascinating new documentary titled “Article VI.”
Independent filmmakers Bryan Hall and Jack Donaldson explore the current debate over the issue and remind us that ignorance on the subject is nothing new. They show how during John F. Kennedy’s campaign for the presidency in 1960, Kennedy had to go to great lengths to assure non-Catholic Americans that he wouldn’t be a tool of the Vatican -- that the Catholic Church wouldn’t be dictating policy decisions if he were elected. Addressing the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Kennedy said: “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate, who happens to be a Catholic.”
Fast forward 48 years, and it seems remarkable that Kennedy’s faith was an issue. With Catholics serving alongside Protestants and the adherents of other faiths (and no faith) for years, the furor almost appears quaint. You would think the “faith” issue was settled once and for all. But as Hall and Donaldson reveal, when they interviewed people across the country from many walks of life, the way people reacted when Romney, a Mormon, was running for president sounded eerily familiar.
Like Kennedy, Romney had to tell voters repeatedly why his faith didn’t disqualify him for the Oval Office. Are we really still asking such questions in America?
Part of what makes “Article VI” such a compelling film is that Hall and Donaldson give us historical context. They remind us, for example, that there’s a shameful tradition of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. When Al Smith ran for president against Herbert Hoover in 1928, he was pilloried for his Catholic faith. It was denounced as anti-democratic, monarchical -- not in tune with American institutions. And there’s also an appalling tradition of prejudice against those of the Jewish faith who seek high office. Remember the horrible questions the press asked of Sen. Joseph Lieberman when he ran for president? Some things never change. For many in the media, it seems, Mormonism is the new anti-semitism.
Of course, every voter should feel free to NOT vote for a candidate based on any reason -- their politics, their ideology, their position on this issue or that ... even their faith. But if a potential candidate is loyal to America, to say that he is unfit to run for office or unfit to govern because of his faith is just plain wrong -- and the Constitution makes that perfectly clear.
Al Smith lost, of course, and by 1960, such sentiments seemed to be changing. But the media just loves to beat people up over faith. The American public, however, does intuitively seem to understand (although we can often get confused by the headlines). As talk-show host Hugh Hewitt says in “Article VI,” 95 percent of the electorate just wants to know whether someone is a good person, not what his theology is. Otherwise, Hewitt notes, we wouldn’t have elected Abraham Lincoln, who “wasn’t remotely an orthodox Christian.” Lincoln read the King James Bible and spoke openly of God, but he belonged to no specific domination.
In “Article VI,” we hear from Jews, Hindus and Muslims who express their love for this country. We also hear from David French, a constitutional lawyer who advocates Christian rights. As a Christian, he says, he doesn’t believe Muslims and Christians worship the same God, “because the Allah of the Koran bears zero resemblance to the God of the Bible. But there’s a First Amendment in this country. People of all faiths are equal citizens of this republic.”
Whether it’s Mitt Romney speaking boldly of his Mormon faith, Mike Huckabee as an ordained Baptist minister, or Barack Obama taking the pulpit in churches across the country, the personal practice of deep faith by our would-be leaders must be passionately protected. As Kennedy told the Houston ministers: “Today, I may be the victim. But tomorrow, it may be you.”
By the way, The Heritage Foundation will send you a free pocket copy of the Constitution so that you’ll always be armed with the truth about your freedoms. Heritage will even pay the postage -- just visit heritage.org for your free copy.
I think one of the problems with Mormonism is that, like Islam, it is a religion with earthly political aspects and was originally conceived as a theocratic system - and, in fact, its adherents were at war with the United States at one point.
So I think that it was reasonable to expect some clarification regarding that issue. Now, granted, this is an issue within Mormonism itself, as some Mormons seek to become or be seen as more traditional Protestant Christians. But the fact is that there are other Mormons who consider themselves the authentic followers and practice polygamy, regard their towns as virtually outside of US law, etc., Therefore, it’s a question that Mormons and the rest of us as well have a right to examine.
Orrin Hatch ran for president in 2000. I don’t remember all this fuss about him being a Mormon.
I was appalled by the anti-Mormon religious bigotry displayed by some posters on FR.
Wrong.
A citizen can say whatever a citizen wants to say about the fitness or non-fitness of any candidate for any reason that citizen desires.
Article VI is about the GOVERNMENT legislating a “… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
I can say that Tom Cruise isn't fit because he believes spaceships are coming to take us away. I can say it all day long. I can write it. The NY Times can put it in headlines.
All of that is fine and dandy.
But CONGRESS cannot impose a religious test. The executive branch cannot enforce a religious test. The courts cannot rule in favor of a religious test.
I disagree.
Most I ran across were appalled by those who kept pointing out Romney’s liberal record.
And they tried to pretend that disagreement with his record was disagreement with his religion.
The BIGOTS were those charlatans.
Is Rebeca Hagelin the sister of the candidate (Reformed Party) who claimed to float?
What a joke.
:>)
A candidate's religious faith is an important test in this or any other election
It is not right to say religion doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches unambiguously that there is to be no separation of religion and state, that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims, and in some sects that Allah commands a jihad or "holy war" be waged against non-Muslim "infidels". To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.
Liberals who insist that religion has no place at all in American politics have to account for the Christian roots of many social reforms. Consider for example the abolitionism and the civil rights movement. When faced with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and other black clergymen explicitly appealing to Christian scripture against Jim Crow, Southern segregationists groused that religion had no business in politics. You can't praise religion's role in political discourse only when it advances causes of which you approve or is practiced by constituencies blacks, say, that vote Democratic.
If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.
Turning to the specific example cited in the article, Mitt, himself, placed his Mormon faith under scrutiny. In his recent speech on Mormonism, Mitt said that a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith. His supporters say it is akin to rejecting a Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.
Mitt has promised to fully obey Mormon teachings without hesitation and without question.
In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual " and was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time."Mitt either intended to honor his promises to follow another man's instructions, or he lied. In the case of the former, we are entitled to know where these directives lead, and in the alternative, we should be concerned about Mitt's honesty.As a Temple Mormon, Mormon Bishop and Stake President, Mitt has sworn among other things, he recognizes the President of the LDS Church as a "prophet, seer and revelator," and will "obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel" as proclaimed by Mormon Prophets.
Mitt made these solemn vows with the understanding they effect "time and all eternity."
I therefore assert any candidate's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, including Mitt Romney's, are an issue of extreme importance in this or any other election.
Romney is able to be molded according to wanting to win elections that means good and bad news for any voter.
Since fellow Republicans are the votes he is after he will do what we want as President when he runs again after McCain gets his ass kicked in November.
Romney will be back and likely since he will be the next guy in line, Will become the G.O.P. Nominee in 2012.
So now he is making the moves he must to get in line with our values.
He will do what we want that’s alot better than George Bush would ever consider. He is a flip flopper just as much as is McCain, but unlike McCain Romney will do what we want because all he cares about is staying in power.
This is good enough for me since i will get what I want.
Had Huckabee not been running - except for some freepers, it wouldn’t have been a problem to most people.
Huckabee being a member of the faith that not only feels compelled to make judgements on other Christian denominations but to loudly tell all how you are going to hell if you don’t believe just as they do.
Like Islamists, some Baptists believe that people do not have the freedom to worship how they want, where they want and what they want.
When will the liberals of this country learn that our vote is precious, and is determined upon whatever criteria WE choose. Isn’t there something in the Constitution about that?
Perhaps the Will of the People can no longer be trusted to the People? They are just to fickle with their religious convictions.
In this election cycle, Isn’t it also strange how precious the candidates “faith” is, but now this author is suggesting that voters can’t have any. We must remove our own convictions in order to make them line up with the candidates and with hers. If we allow this, we are taking just one step closer to Orwells world.
I old enough to know the difference.
This is a curious post. Romney’s Mormon faith should not be considered, but we can bash on the Baptists?
It is amazing to me when posters don’t see their own hypocrisy.
IMO all faiths should be open for debate and questions be it Islamists, Baptists, Bhuddists, Mormons or Mormon fundamentalists.
But the fact is that there are other Mormons who consider themselves the authentic followers and practice polygamy, regard their towns as virtually outside of US law, etc., Therefore, it’s a question that Mormons and the rest of us as well have a right to examine.They are a very small minority of Mormons and might not even be in the Mormon church but in some offshoot -- though I'm not sure about that, not being an expert. One thing I am sure of, having lived and worked many years in Las Vegas, the vast majority (95%+) of Mormons are hard-working, taxpaying, patriotic Americans. I wonder if you can say that about any other religious denomination in America. Maybe you can, I don't know, I'm no expert. But I'll match the work-ethic and patriotism of the average Mormon against any other group in our country. And I'm no Mormon. I just know what I've seen.
Those who voted against Romney because they didn't trust his claim to be a conservative were, in my estimate, mistaken but reasonable.
Those who voted against him because he is a Mormon were unreasonable and, in a certain deep sense, un-American.
Here’s the clue they need:
If the opponent was talking about Romney’s record, then that person disagreed with his record and is entirely free to take that moral and ethical stand.
If the opponent spent his time talking against Mitt, Moroni and Nephi, then that person was a religious opponent.
Why don’t you tell us what you think about Romney.
I am a non-believing Mormon. Sixth generation. I know a lot about the LDS Church and its history. IMO the LDS Church teaches its people to act in exactly the way we saw Romney act.
If you liked Romney, then I suppose there is no problem.
I’m sure McCain is gratful for your support. It won’t do him any good though come November.
I’m sure conservatives are glad you split the votes away from Fred and gave McCain the nomination. Mighty good of you.
Romney is no conservative.
You want religious discrimination?
How about the lockstep, mindless following of Mitt Romney by his co-religionists. No Mormons need apply!
How about the vitriol and scorn poured onto Mike Huckabee as an evangelical?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.