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.
This looks like bait for the Viking Kitties!
Romney was popular only by default. Conservatives weren't in his camp until Romney was only semblence of a conservative left in the race. I strongly doubt many of these reluctant converts will enthusiastically support him if there are real conservatives running.
The last 11 elections (beginning in 1964 when the conservative movement really got started) just don't provide very strong evidence for this theory. Four nominating processes are not applicable since there was a popular incumbent Republican President who was essentially unchallenged: 1972, 1984, 1992, and 2004.
Three primary election cycles argue against that theory. In 1964, the outsider clearly won in Goldwater much to the chagrin of the Republican establishment who supported Nelson Rockefeller (a group which included the Romney family). In 1976, although Ronald Reagan didn't win the nomination, his candidancy showed that the Republicans don't always vote for the next guy. As the sitting President, Gerald Ford would rightfully claim the next-guy-in-line title. In 2000, George W. Bush won in a year that there wasn't a clear claimant to the title of the next-guy-in-line.
Four primary election cycles argue in favor of this theory: 1968 (when Richard Nixon re-emerged), 1980, 1988, and 1996. In these years, the Republican nomination was given to the guy who had paid his dues.
Overall, I think the tally is 4-3-4 on the theory which isn't real strong support. After 2008, it is likely to be 5-3-4 which still isn't very overwhelming evidence. It certainly doesn't make it a lock.
Who will you vote for in the primary? Who in the general?
And you sound pretty ignorant about the whole thing.
Wow a smart poster. I’m so pleased to read something actually intelligent. Good for you. Let’s all support Newt Gingrich for President in 2012 and make the “next guy in line” fraternity die once and for all. We can do it if we are united and if Newt will JUST RUN !
I Voted for Mitt Romney in my California Primary. I will vote for Newt Gingrich as a WRITE IN, in the general Election of 2008.
Orin did state afterward that he thought that religious bias was the reason he lost.
I wonder if that isn't why Joseph Smith lost too?
well, you sure didn’t see the big push for him or the shouting matches on FR that we saw from the romney supporters.
Wouldn’t you feel more comfortable with your potty mouth back at DU?
You slime your way over to FR in Nov. ‘07 to recruit division in the Republican party, and you expect to remain hidden? Bwahahaha, you’re outed, dweeb.
>>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.<<
If I may paraphrase: “one of the problems with Mormonism is that, like Islam, it does not stand up very well to close scrutiny”.
I think the most interesting observation I made regarding Mitt’s run is not even about Mitt. It is that many Mormons were nervous about the scrutiny their beliefs would get if he ran.
My church would WELCOME such scrutiny. The very fact that they were concerned is pretty telling.
One outcome is that most people know about the underwear now. It’s a small start, but it is a start. I wonder what else would have become “common public knowledge” if they had been scrutinized all the way to November?
Yeah, what a waste of good money.
>>I was appalled by the anti-Mormon religious bigotry displayed by some posters on FR.<<
Me too. But there was really very little of it. Most of it was very anti-mormon, but it wasn’t bigotry. It was well thought out, intelligent questioning of questionable claims. That is not bigotry any more than someone saying most women make lousy frontline marines is bigotry. It is merely an acknowledging of facts.
I just wanted you to know, I’m one of the ones hitting the abuse button on you, agitprop.
Mormons welcome inquiries into the religion and the practices thereof.
Unfortunately what you are calling 'scrutiny' isn't an honest look into the religion at all.
The people 'scrutinizing' were in no way shape or form interested in learning about the religion, but rather demeaning another religion or trying to defend their own.
Conversely before they ever started they went in with a vitriolic attitude to tear down and demean rather than learn. Trying to root the hate out of someone's heart is no easy thing.
Its competition among religious groups and from experience that turns ugly because those other groups tend to be threatened by Mormons.
Not liking this, that set the tone for how those religionists handled the situation.
I would liken it to a black man trying to walk into a store labeled 'whites only' back in the 1920's. They don't care WHAT his character is, all they know is he is not allowed and will make it known.
The same apprehension that guy would have is similar to some of the apprehension Mormons have.
Scrutiny and Inquiry is one thing. Attacking is another.
From experience when you try talking to someone who vitriolicaly has their mind made up about something, talking to them is impossible.
Most Mormons saw the fight looming before a word was uttered.
What resulted was a ton of screaming but very few STILL have not put the church to true scrutiny.
Saying "I want to find out what these guys believe in" is one thing...
Gritting one's teeth and saying "I am going to prove to the world that I hate Mormons and they should too" is another.
Despite all the election and the screaming the vast majority of the world still does not know anything about Mormons.
You forgot the puke alert on that trash you just posted.
>>You forgot the puke alert on that trash you just posted.<<
And now I know why you thought there was so much “bigotry” here.
Grow up.
When you stop lying I will start growing up.
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.