The Candidates
Featured Archives
Two centuries after this country was founded by at least nominal Protestants of the white, Anglo-Saxon variety, one of its major parties may be on the verge of nominating a presidential ticket that is completely free of the religious group that a plurality, if not majority, of Americans still identifies with.? Two of the GOP’s most likely ‘08 nominees, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, are non-Protestant Christians by most definitions (I’ll leave it to the gang to debate whether I’m classifying Mormonism correctly).? And with a number of orthodox Catholic GOP rising stars making everyone’s veep shortlist due to the continued importance of issues like abortion to conservatives and Republicans, it’s quite possible that 2008 could mark the first time in American history that a major political party nominated not one, but two non-Protestants for the presidency and vice presidency.
But would this be politically wise?
As a Catholic in my late twenties, I haven’t been privy to the sorts of anti-Catholic sentiments that were reportedly once quite prevalent in American society.? Indeed, it was just over four decades ago that the notion of a Catholic leading a major party ticket was a subject of controversy.? Now, the notion raises few eyebrows.? Still, cultural identity is quite powerful, and just because a prejudice lies dormant doesn’t mean it’s been eradicated.
Many conservatives point out that the fact that the Right preferred Roman Catholic Alito to evangelical Miers w/r/t SCOTUS proves that policies trump religious or cultural identity in this political age.? Maybe so.? But I did notice a latent anti-Catholic nastiness coming from a few of the Miers defenders on the fringe last year, who claimed that non-evangelical conservatives that staffed organizations such as National Review (a Catholic bastion) opposed Miers because she was an evangelical.? Granted, the whole Miers debacle was a bit weird, and was exacerbated by President Bush and his poor handling of the issue, but still, the bad feelings were there,?implicit in many an anonymous email and blog post.?
All of that said, I have a hard time imagining Middle America allowing Hillary Clinton to become president simply because no one on the GOP ticket will be sworn in using the King James Bible.? I think voters are more sophisticated than that, and that policies will ultimately trump doctrinal differences.? As such, if some combination of Rudy and Romney proves to be the best ticket, I think Republicans should run with it.? Still, I wouldn’t fault either Rudy or Romney for playing it safe and ensuring that their ticket is balanced in all sorts of demographic ways, including religious identity.
What do you think?
November 1st, 2006 at 10:38 pm
First of all, you are correct in that both Roman Catholicism and Mormonism do not, by most theologians standards, fall under the umbrella of Protestantism. Mormonism was, in fact, a protestant (lowercase p) movement against Protestantism. While I wouldn’t put too much stock in the notion that evangelicals will cream Romney come January 2008 because of his religion, most fundamentalist (in the non-pejorative sense) Christians (myself included) classify Mormonism as a cult. I’m still waiting to see how that will play out with the evangelical voters–it could go either way really.
Funny enough, I don’t think Rudy’s Catholicism will be a problem for him because in his case, his leadership skills and public persona really DO trump his religious identity. I don’t think Rudy would worry too much about ensuring there is an evangelical voter on the ticket because evangelical Republicans will vote for almost any GOP ticket as long as there are no Democrats on it. Evangelicals don’t stay home on election night because the Republican candidates don’t go to the same church they do. Evangelicals might stay home if they feel left out of the political process, but from the way we have been included in the process in the past few presidential election cycles, I don’t think that’s going to happen.
If Rudy is nominated, evangelicals will vote for him just as they voted for Bush, regardless of whom his VP pick is. I do think it would help motivate evangelicals to get up and vote on Election Day if Rudy were to have an evangelical VP, but religious identity is becoming less and less important to conservative voters than leadership skill and the issues.
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:49 am
Mormons are not Protestants. Nor are they “protestants”. They did not form to “protest” anything. They are not an offshoot of any religion. They broke away from no sect.
If you must label them as something, call them Restorationists. They believe in a Restoration, not a Reformation. They did not “reform” anything (new wine in old bottles, and all that sort of thing).
They teach that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to the 14-year-old Joseph Smith in 1820 and called him to be a prophet. They also teach that John the Baptist restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the divine authority to baptise; and Peter, James, and John later restored the authority of the ancient apostleship to mortal men. These two events took place in 1829 to both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. These and other heavenly messengers restored power, authority, and truths lost for centuries.
So you see, Catholics and Mormons have a lot in common in their fundemental outlook. They both believe that actual authority from God is essential for running Christ’s church on the earth. Catholics believe they have the authority from God through an unbroken line through Peter, and there is no need for a Joseph Smith. Mormons believe that the line was broken, and a Joseph Smith was necessary to restore it.
One more thing, if Romney is elected President, he will likely be sworn in using the King James Bible since that is the offical bible of the LDS Church.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:58 am
If not a protestant movement against Protestantism, Mormonism was at least begun as a counter-Protestant movement. One of Smith’s chief purposes for starting his own church was because all of the other Protestant churches were corrupt and wrong and he claimed God told him to restore the true church in opposition to the other false churches.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:00 am
Woodrow Eisenhower…Mormonism is not a cult, let’s get that straight. True religous conservatives should look at the philosphicaly views of the Mormom faith rather than the lies and inedundo (sp?) that have abounded for years. The honest and sincere belifs of Romney (and all Mormons) will make him a formidable candidate.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Close, Woodrow, but not quite there yet. He was told by God that all churches were now corrupt in one way or the other, not just the Protestants.
That hasn’t sat well with other churches, has it? No big surprise there.
As for them being a cult, it really depends upon what you mean by the word. My dictionary defines it thus:
1. Worship or religious devotion; especially, a form of religion.
2. A system of religious observances.
3. Extravagant devotion to a person, cause, or thing; also, the object of such devoition.
(Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, Comprehensive International Edition 1976)
I suspect that it would be a very, very rare church that could not be describe by the first two definitions. As for the third, it all depends upon who defines what ‘Extravagent’ is, doesn’t it? Too often it just means, “different”.
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
I am certain that the last thing Kavon wants this blog to turn into is a religion forum. We are already arguing about politics. We certainly don’t need to bring religion into it, too. However, as long as Romney is a top candidate for 2008, and this blog is called “Race 4 2008″, some discussion on religion is inevitible.
Romney is a devout Mormon. He makes no bones about it. He doesn’t shy away from it, distance himself from it, or compromise on it one iota. Nor is this likely to change. He considers it a matter of personal integrity.
Romney is obviously a man of great intelligence, education, drive, and integrity. His moral character is unimpeachible. He has been devouted to his one and only wife for decades. He has raised five outstanding sons, each one of them a credit to their community. He is honest, hard-working, very articulate, personable, and charismatic. People just seem to like him.
This is a problem only for those who are invested in the “Mormons are part of an evil, immoral cult full of ignorant, gullible people” meme. Most people aren’t. They might have heard it and might even have assumed it to be true; Now they will likely look at Romney, shrug their shoulders, and say, “We are electing a President, not a Pastor”, and move on past his religion to the issues involved.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Hey marK, if you were right about this site, Kavon should consider his remarks before he writes them. Until people stop mentioning “Mormon†and the fundamentalist Neo-protestant notion that Mormons are not Christians along with any mention of Mitt Romney, you should always expect religious discussion to follow. These supposed political writers are just provoking discussion. It reminds me of the Othrodox and more conservative sects of Judism claiming that Reformed Jews aren’t really Jewish. Who has the right to claim who is or isn’t Christian, except the practitioner themselves? If anyone claims to be Christian or Jewish, you know what, I’d believe them. These neo-protestants who claim that Mormons aren’t Christians are nuts. Sounds more like wishful thinking. My old political science professor back in college always said one of the major downfalls of any group is when it starts to believe its own propaganda. I think that’s good advice.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Right On is right on. The best indicator of a person’s religion is what they claim it to be. Challenging another person’s authority on that person’s beliefs or sincerity is arrogant and definitely non-Christian.
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Excuse me… Did I write this story? Have I commented on it?
I have not said “boo” about this or any other religion. So please direct your anger elsewhere.
The next person who accuses me of religious bias on my own site when I haven’t said one single thing against any religion will have their IP banned.
Do we understand each other? Â
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Woah, Kavon, I hope you’re not talking to me. I seriously didn’t accuse you of anything. If I’m not understanding you, please clarify so I’ll knoow what you’re talking about for future posts.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:59 pm
No, not you Murphy- you can talk smack to me whenever you want
That comment was directed to “Right On”. Nothing pisses me off more than being accused of writing something I did not.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Just a little case of comment-immediately-preceding-site-administrator’s-smackdown jitters…
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Kavon, I wasn’t attacking you. I was commenting on political writers and religios zelots who condem Mormons as non-Christians. Do you find yourself in this category? You’re way too defensive for someone who is interested in political discussion. The point I was making was those who address Romney’s religion with every mention of his name is provoking religious discussion. My remarks were made to marK.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Norfolk
Read more about Norfolk