Lately there has been some talk about whether or not questioning the religious beliefs of Presidential Candidates is "fair game" in an election. The Romney campaign has been holding up stories in the media about the Mormon faith to what they called the "Jewish Test" wherein they ask if a similar story would be written about Jewish beliefs and history. I will let Romney campaign spokeswoman explain it in her own words.
"Our test to see if a similar story would be written about others' religion is to substitute 'Jew' or 'Jewish,' " Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul wrote in objection to [an] article...about the candidate's role as a church leader in Boston. She pointed out a passage that explained [the Mormon] belief that Christ's true church was restored after centuries of apostasy when the 19th-century prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates that he discovered in Upstate New York. "Would you write this sentence in describing the Jewish faith: 'Jews believe their prophet Moses was delivered tablets on a mountain top directly from G-d after he appeared to him in a burning bush,' " Saul wrote in a November e-mail. "Of course not, yet you reference a similar story in Mormonism."
I have several problems with that block of text passing for a paragraph.
The first of which is the apparent worry over informing people about Mormonism. This seems to be Romney's biggest fear, that if people learn about his church they will be immediately turned off by it and him. I happen to think there is some truth to that. Second, they seem to forget that Mormonism is a very small, very new religion that most people are unfamiliar with, whereas the Jewish faith has been around for a very long time and has a very large population in the United States.
Is it not the media's job to inform the public? Are stories about the history and beliefs of the Mormon church not valuable information for the masses, when one of the two major candidates for President stakes claim on this new religion? There is such a thing as context. You might even call it Collective Context if I may coin a phrase. Nobody of voting age is confused by what a "Jew" (as they're so found of saying) is, or what they believe.
Mormonism on the other hand is by design secretive and Mitt Romney has done nothing to change that fact. On the contrary he is often first to hide his Mormonism, to try and disguise it as regular old, boring Christianity. The email I block quoted above is a prime example of the Romney campaign pretending as though Mormonism is no more exotic or extraordinary than religions that have been around for several thousand of years longer than it.
They are going out of their way to ensure there is no discussion about Mormonism and that Romney is not linked to the crazy rituals and bronze age beliefs regarding the role of woman, the use of birth control or any of the touchier more controversial subjects such as polygamy, racism, child brides, etc. The Romney campaign doesn't want the American people to discover the ridiculous basis for some of Mitt's most devoted beliefs.
The fact that they are apparently scanning news papers all over the nation for such stories only to guilt trip the authors, strikes me as a sign of desperation. But it is in this way that Romney has kept his religion a secret while still holding his religiosity front and center. Both Team Obama and Team Romney have said questions about the candidates religious beliefs are officially off limits.
This seems to be the one area in which these two sides agree, so naturally they are both wrong.
Any time you have a politician who insists on making his faith a part of his campaign, his persona, or his platform, one must ask a series of questions. The first of which is most important.
Do you believe religion has a place in politics or more importantly in Governance?
If the answer is no, or something equivalent to no, than fine. Move a long. Nothing to see here. I will be immediately pacified and happy with that answer. This is not to say I won't have some reservations about whether a person of faith truly can keep their political views separate from their religious views, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
I give the benefit of the doubt because I know from personal conversations with religious friends that to say such a thing, to proclaim that you will hold one view in church and then toss it aside in the rest of your daily life, while not quite technically blasphemous would be considered uncomfortably close for many, if not most devout Christians.
If Mitt Romney or any other politician came out and said that he is personally very religious but he has no intention of imposing the beliefs, morals and values of his church on the American people. That he will not formulate policy based on his interpretation of "Gods Will" and that religious beliefs cannot play a role when making policy for a nation as diverse as ours, than I would be the first to applaud.
For once we would be on the same page, and I would be delighted to have him.
But we know the real answer to the question most often and certainly in the case of Governor Romney, is a resounding YES! Of course he believes religion has a place in politics. Of course it has a place in Governance. We didn't stumble onto the revelation that Governor Romney is a Mormon by accident or through some penetrating investigation. He brought it up. He made it a center piece of a his campaign, indeed his whole political career. He holds his faith as a virtue and believes it makes him more qualified to lead his countrymen.
So the next logical question immediately becomes "What exactly are your religious beliefs?"
This is where the Romney campaign calls a foul. This is what the Obama campaign calls "off limits." But is this not the most reasonable of questions? Is this question not begging to be asked the moment Mitt Romney injects religious ideals and language into a political campaign?
After all if you are going to be basing your decisions even partially on these tenants of faith, shouldn't we at least know what they are? This is the sort of thing that will both directly, and indirectly influence a Romney Presidency. This is a question that must be asked. It is a perfectly legitimate question, if only because so many political issues are also religious issues.
Gay Marriage for instance is a very big political issue that has a very forceful religious opposition. When it comes to the rights of Gay Americans, what does Mitt Romney believe, and how did he arrive at that belief? Ironically this is where Mitt Romney's "Jewish Test" is turned on it's head. If Joe Lieberman were asked these questions he would no doubt read (or quote from memory) direct versus of the bible to support his view and explain where it originates and why he feels he is right.
I would disagree with the approach, but at least we would know that Joe Lieberman follows a strict orthodox Jewish tradition. We can then make an informed decision on how much if at all, that matters. The same could be said of Rick Santorum, as wrong and hateful as he was, he at least had the wherewithal to assert the origin of his backward ideas.
So when Mitt Romney refuses to answer questions about his faith and what he believes, with the now standard line of "I'm not a spokesperson for my church... If you want to learn about my church, talk to my church" I cannot help but wonder if the man knows he is running for President of the United States.
Such an answer is not acceptable.
If you disagree with tenets of your faith, which ones? If you do not than why not share with us what your church believes? If your religion is no different from that of the Jewish People or the Evangelical base of your party, you should have no problem answering such questions and stating up front exactly what you believe, why, and where you got your information.
But the problem for Romney is that Mormonism is different from the generic Christian, or Jewish faiths. While I personally think all religions are equally ridiculous, I can see why traditional religious people take offense with the idea of being grouped in with Mormons. They are the Internet Explorer of Religions.
I suspect Mitt Romney wants to talk about his faith. I think he hates the fact that he has to dodge these questions. You don't devote your entire life to a set of beliefs only to skirt away from scrutiny. I would bet you he wants to answer these questions, he wants to debate it, he wants to show off his ability to defend his faith, but he can't because he knows that if he is drawn into a debate about the merits of Mormonism, he loses.
Not only would it be a distraction from the economy (Obama's weakest link), not only would it put him on the defensive, not only would he have no retort other than the tired old "Secret Muslim" non-sense against Obama (who to his credit actually has spoken about the role of faith in his life and policies) but he would lose because he would be forced to either publicly embrace the crazy, backward, ideas of his church, or publicly denounce those bits and pieces with which he disagrees.
And the latter may be Romney's actual Modus Operandi. Say what he has to say in Church and to get elected, only to act a completely different way out in the real world. I have known plenty of Mormons, Catholics and others who do this very thing.
But Romney knows you cannot do this as an American politician. What does it say of ones character, or ones devotion when you cannot stand behind the principals of your supposed religion? How can anyone know what you stand for if you don't even stand by your own faith? Worse still denouncing only parts of his churches teachings would expose Romney as a bigot. To pick and chose which parts to follow and which to denounce, with the hatred of Gay people (for example) winning out as one of the things he voluntarily aligns himself with, makes for an uncomfortable campaign.
After all if one is going to pick and choose, why not pick the nicer parts to follow and disavow the stuff regarding bigotry and racism? Because he is a Republican and faith is their all encompassing excuse for hate.
So we're left with Romney's insistence that he is not a spokesperson for his church. It is the only safe response he can give that won't alienate his fellow Mormons, while still deflecting any questions regarding specific Mormon beliefs. But even this raises more questions such as Why do you keep bringing it up? Why do you push it in our faces with your positions and proposals? Why does everything you say stink of religious dogma? Either take a stand and let the American people know what they're getting, or dial it back a bit.
Likewise I am equally disappointed with David Axelrod's assertion that Romney's religious beliefs are not "fair game." Why not? Again it does not matter what faith the politician follows, the voters deserve to know how these people came to their personal beliefs on the issues of the day, and where they got their information. If Mitt Romney believes the earth is only 6,000 years old the voters have a right to know. If George W. Bush believes God personally speaks to him in revelation, the voters have a right to know.
These are legitimate concerns that have little if nothing to do with competing religious sects or cults, and everything to do with whether or not our politicians are simply delusional or irreversibly broken.