Virtually every fair-minded Americans would agree that no citizen should categorically rule out a candidate for public office simply for being a Catholic, Protestant or Jew. Most, would also say the same about Muslims.
But does it really follow that someone can say “my religion is X and no matter how outlandish or offensive you find it to be, you cannot question it or me, because I have given it the label of ‘Religion?’”
If I decide tomorrow to run for Mayor of New York City tomorrow and I tell people that I am a TJian, and that I believe that TJ Walker is the son of God and that no one will get to heaven without believing I am the son of God, I think we can all agree that it is perfectly fair, rational, and just for most voters to write me off as a deluded fool.
What if my son runs for mayor and tells people he believes that I am the son of God and that all must submit to me to get to heaven? Voters might feel more pity for him than for me, but wouldn’t it still be fair for voters to make negative judgments regarding my son’s ability to make sound judgments?
What if it’s my grandson running for mayor, and I have been dead for a few years? And what if is a matter of public record that I have been convicted of fraud on numerous occasions? Voters might be a little more sympathetic given that my grandson was raised in a tradition and that some of the particulars seemed to have happened a long time ago.
Let’s face it, every religion has some crazy elements that are justified by faith, which is just a fancy word for “crazy stuff that makes no sense, but you’ll just have to take our word for it because...” The issue comes down to what kinds of crazy stuff we are talking about. Virgin births and self-replenishing oil lamps might seem odd, but they don’t really offend or hurt people. Giving little girls’ clitorectomies or allowing men to take numerous wives simultaneously, especially child brides, somehow strikes people as radically different.
The Unites States government put a great deal of pressure on the Mormon Church to eliminate the practice of polygamy. Was this a good thing for the government to do? Or was that “religious bigotry?”
If we as citizens are really bound to the idea that all religions are of equal value civicly, then how do we feel about a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) (this isn’t the big one Romney belongs to) running for major office. The FLDS advocate and practice polygamy. What if a FLDS candidate only had one wife but took the position that he agreed with his church’s teachings and that he simply took only one wife as a practical matter, not as recognition of a religious principle. In this case, there would be no issue of the candidate breaking anti-polygamy laws.
Is there a line? If so, what is it? You are on fairly safe ground if you describe Scientology’s L. Ron Hubbard as a fanatical, money-grubbing, lunatic conman, but was he really worse than Joseph Smith, or did Hubbard simply have the disadvantage of living in the 20th century and its greater levels of media scrutiny?
It strikes me that purist who claim “an individual’s religious beliefs cannot and should never be taken into account when casting a vote” isn’t really being honest. Someone who professes faith in Charlie Manson or to a jihadist vision of blowing up infidels could and surely would be judged on their religious views.
So where does this leave us? I’m uncomfortable with the idea that voters can simply use something I’ve said as a pretext for voting against politicians, just because that politician has different religious views. But I’m equally troubled by the idea that a politician can say anything, no matter how ridiculous, sexist, racist or fantastic and we are disallowed from judging that person, simply because he or she wraps a protective religious bow around it.
It strikes me, for example, that it is unfair to attack Mitt Romney for Mormons wearing magic underwear without that devolving into counter attacks on the Pope’s dresses and Jewish headwear. I think in a civil society we have to grant that each religion has customs regarding clothing that aren’t related simple protection from the elements.
But what if your religion systematically excommunicates follower for having mainstream political views? What if your religion didn’t think black people had full souls till relatively recently? What if your religion was founded recently by a convicted conman who loved the idea of lots of child brides?
Are these truly questions that do not deserve to be asked?
Yes there is such a thing as religious bigotry, and that’s a bad thing. But here is also such a thing as crazy deluded people who con others into following them. And there is such a thing as genuinely sick, destructive ideas that hide behind the cloak of religion.
Shouldn’t a mature civil society be able to distinguish between the two?