December 28, 2006

The Religious Test

I "joined" the New Republic so I could see the blue-on-blue violence of Martin Peretz vs Daily Kos. But now I get their emails every couple of days.

Here's the latest.

    When Massachusetts Mitt Romney announces his bid for the Republican nomination, the race for the White House will suddenly include a Mormon. Romney's presence has led the political theorist Damon Linker to ponder the political implications of Mormonism. Is there any reason to fear a Mormon commander in chief? How should religion enter our calculus for selecting presidents? Linker takes a view that might not seem very politically correct. He argues for taking religion--and its stated beliefs--with the utmost seriousness. Such seriousness would lead a voter to reject an orthodox Mormon presidential candidate. If Romney enters the race, he'll be forced to answer the important questions that Linker poses.

Ugh. Really, haven't we as a country grown beyond this?

Clearly some on the left haven't.

2008 Race Posted by AlexC at December 28, 2006 1:28 PM

I promise you heartbreak and consternation every week from TNR. But it's a fair trade for items like Peretz's Audacity of Hope, Arkansas where he speculates about Senator Clinton's perspective in facing Sen. Obama:

Hillary and Co. prepared for Mark Warner and John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, Tom Vilsack and the really impossible--no, deluded--dreamer John Kerry. She probably had a strategy against Gore, too. She was confident and contemptuous. And then, suddenly, she found herself running against a latter-day Martin Luther King Jr.

Posted by: jk at December 28, 2006 2:13 PM

More relevantly, why not take the stated beliefs of ALL candidates "with the utmost seriousness?" Why should such an approach be limited only to religious candidates in general, or conservative religious candidates in particular?

Posted by: johngalt at December 28, 2006 2:49 PM

First, I hear ya, John.

Second, the Pope didn't take over after JFK,..why should we expect Coke, Pepsi, coffee and tea (there goes that graph, jk!)to be banned if Romney wins?

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at December 28, 2006 10:13 PM

The real issue here for the progressives who ponder this religion factor is not that religion is contrary to their beliefs, per se. What worries them is that religion endorses values that are more or less invariable. Modify God's law with a healthy dose of "it depends" and you'll find much less hostility from the progressives.

Posted by: johngalt at December 29, 2006 10:34 PM

JG brings up an interesting contrast here. He is correct to point out that the progressives problem with religious politicians is that religion provides more or less invariable values and a system of right and wrong.

I don't have a problem with this as I believe in a value system of right and wrong. However, the problem with, "God's Laws," being the basis for such a system is that God's laws are only available to us on earth as interpreted by some man or other. Here I find I have some sympathy with the progressives. We clearly do not wish to be governed by God's Laws as interpreted by the islamofascists. So tell me, Mr. Romney, what government actions are taken in regards to God's laws as interpreted by a Mormon?

This seems a legitimate question to ask any political candidate.

Posted by: dagny at December 30, 2006 1:00 AM | What do you think? [5]