Posted by
Adam Graham on Saturday, May 12, 2007 12:36:42 AM
I’m a fervent opponent of the nomination of Mitt Romney for the Presidency of the United States on the Republican side. Romney’s multiple flip flops right before running for president paint a portrait of a man who will say whatever it takes to get elected. In fact, I’m doing my best on the behalf of Governor Romney’s opponents.
I’m an Evangelical and I disagree strongly with official LDS Church views of theology, salvation, and scripture. Having said that, I’ve been disgusted by the statements of many in opposition to Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith.
In 21st Century America, there exists people who look at Mitt Romney and see “the Mormon” and their arguments against his campaign run no deeper than his religious beliefs. This is troubling and dangerous for many reasons.
It is troubling on the first account, because the attacks show none of the love nor charity that Christ commanded. Indeed, the attacks have been based on fear, particularly the fear that having a Mormon in the White House will create new Mormon converts. As I’m sure you remember, thanks to JFK being elected, the entire country converted to Roman Catholicism and under President Bush everyone has become a Methodist. Oh wait, Americans pretty much keep their own religion, regardless of what faith the President adheres to, but I guess all that will change with a Mormon in the White House.
The second point is that this is a good way to create tension for Evangelicals living in areas with large LDS populations. From Idaho, I have a message to folks in Alabama, some of us live in areas where we see Mormons somewhere other than on HBO. Mormons and Evangelicals share many issues of common cultural concern, and over the years have been allies in key issues like the pro-life fight, the defense and the struggle to keep God in the public square. As has been the case with many Orthodox and Conservative Jews, we have been able to put aside our disagreements in the name of advancing the best interests of our community. That type of coalition is threatened with prejudice.
Third, it denies a basic American principle of fairness. The mass of people who are opposing Mitt Romney for his Mormonism alone, have no problem with Mormons enlisting and going off to fight their wars. They have no problem with Mormons being the police officers that protect their lives from criminals. But a Mormon actually serving as President is too much for them.
When one looks at a candidate for office, you don’t need to agree with his religious faith, but rather their governing philosophy. In Montana, there’s a man who is unabashedly pro-life. He has fought for lower taxes, less government, and to change that state’s monstrous Supreme Court. He had a positive view of public acknowledgments of God His brother was my mother’s doctor and traveled hundreds of miles to testify for pro-life legislation. Both this man (Rob Natelson) and his brother were Jewish. I supported Mr. Natelson when he ran for Governor, because what mattered most were his policies and his understanding of the role of government. That far exceeded the Protestants he ran against in 1996 and 2000.
In 2000, after all the pundits had declared the Presidential Primaries over, Utahans gave Alan Keyes his largest vote percentage anywhere in the country (23%.) They saw beyond his religion to the man he was and the principles they shared. They considered the merits, and that is what we should judge Romney on as well.
Finally, all Evangelicals should be disturbed by the idea that theological beliefs that will not affect a candidate’s ability to govern are matters for which we should disqualify candidates for office. While many conservative Christians back disqualifying Romney for his Mormonism alone, so do liberals like Slate’s Jacob Weisberg, who wrote that what made Mormonism different from mainstream Judaism and Christianity is that “the world's greater religions have had time to splinter, moderate, and turn their myths into metaphor.” Thus, those who believe the seminal tenets of Christianity (i.e. the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, etc.) will find themselves getting the same treatment being dished out to Romney. While according to a recent poll, 37% would not vote for a Mormon President, 21% would not vote for an Evangelical.
Imagine a campaign where an Evangelical Candidate is brought under fire by the media and constantly asked if they believe in the truth of John 14: 6 (Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one comes to the father but by him), do they really believe in the Virgin Birth, do they really believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead? If so, they will be declared utterly irrational and unqualified for office by the same people with whom those attacking Romney’s Mormonism find themselves in agreement. Believe me, a belief that Jesus is the only way to Heaven will be far more controversial than the LDS three-tiered after-life where nearly everyone makes it to Heaven in some form, save the most wicked.
Conclusion
America is a unique nation. From the beginning, we have acknowledged God as the guarantor of our rights, and even the most impious of the Founders knew that we needed His guidance and care. Yet, at the same time, we have practiced religious toleration, leaving each man to work out his “own salvation with fair and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)
Certainly, there are forums to debate the merits of Mormonism. The Presidential election is not one. When I look at Mitt Romney, I see a man I can’t trust because I don’t believe he has a core. I see a power lust that is present in men who profess all kinds of faiths, and no faith at all, that leads him to say what he thinks will benefit him at the moment. Maybe others will see something else. Whatever we see, hopefully when we look at Mitt Romney as a candidate, we’ll judge him not on Mormonism, but on merit.