Yes, Romney needs to answer questions about his religion

By : Dick Polman
Philadelphia Inquirer


Mitt Romney's own Republican Party has made religion fair game, and Romney will be asked how his faith would affect his policies.

Few Americans voiced concerns about the Mormon faith when Mitt Romney's father ran for president 40 years ago, probably because the guy flamed out so quickly. As a Republican colleague, Gov. James Rhodes of Ohio, remarked at the time, ''Watching George Romney run for the presidency was like watching a duck try to make love to a football.''

But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008, rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity. This is particularly true in the Republican camp, where religion and politics are now routinely intertwined; indeed, candidate George W. Bush upped the ante in 2000, when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, ''because he changed my life.''

So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's ''one true church.'' He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that ''I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs.''

But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.

Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping ''the church of the devil.'' Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.

Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.

As Romney himself recently told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, ''I believe in my faith. I love my faith, and I would in no way, shape, or form try to distance myself from my faith or the fundamental beliefs of my faith.'' He was a church leader in Massachusetts, as were his forebears out West. And his great-grandfather had five wives, after being personally instructed to practice polygamy by Smith's successor, Brigham Young.

But does all this mean Romney is too weird to lead America? The truth is, most religions look weird to outsiders. Perhaps it's no more appropriate to ask Romney whether he rationally believes the Garden of Eden was in Missouri than it would be to ask a Catholic candidate whether he rationally believes that the wafer he eats on Sunday is the actual body and blood of Jesus, or to ask a Jewish candidate whether he rationally thinks that Moses parted the Red Sea. Most Americans, rational in their professional lives, accept religious doctrines as a matter of private faith, or simply as metaphor.

Romney will undoubtedly try to ''do a JFK'' when he opts to confront these issues. Kennedy told an audience of Protestant ministers that his religion would not influence his job. Romney, in his sketchy remarks thus far, has similarly insisted that his oath to uphold the Constitution would take precedent.

But Romney has a more difficult task. Whereas Kennedy mollified skeptics by declaring that ''I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,'' Romney can ill afford to say that. Conservative Christian voters, who wield great influence in Republican primaries, do not believe in ''absolute'' separation. Romney would commit political suicide if he echoed JFK; nor would he want to, for personal reasons. He has repeatedly signaled that religion belongs in the public square, and that the tenets of his faith have infused his conservative politics.

Those arguments might be enough to propel him through the primaries; the general election might be another story. Some questions do seem appropriate.

First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on ''faith-promoting'' information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, ''Some things that are true are not very useful.'' Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?

Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of ''a quintessentially American faith'' (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called ''American exceptionalism,'' the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?

What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.

***Thoughts from the PostMormon Board****

This comment by Crime Dog was so good, I just had to share it:

He wants desperately to separate his faith and his politics, but people will not let him. Is that appropriate? Is it wrong to question him about his religious beliefs? Should that play into any decision about who should be the nation's Chief Executive?

Of course it should, if there is any legitimate suspicion that the candidate would consider his religious beliefs above what might be best for this nation. Many candidates are able to set aside their religious beliefs and consider what is best for our nation. Others are not. How do you know which is which? If a candidate states his belief in creation, and that the world is only 6,000 years old, that's a deal killer. He's not bright enough to be my president. He clearly considers his religious beliefs superior to reason and intelligence.

What if the candidate's religion requires him, as a condition of attaining God's highest glory, to go into its most sacred edifice, and therein to swear an oath of consecration and allegiance to the church and its leaders above all else? Suppose it requires him to swear an oath that he would suffer his life to be taken in the most revolting fashion before he would reveal the cult's secrets? Is that important for people to know when considering a presidential candidate? You'll have to decide that for yourself.

Either these temple rites and oaths are real, eternal, and life dictating, or they are not. Mitt needs to tell us which. If they are, then his allegiance and loyalty will first be to his church - not the nation. If they are not, then he tells the world that his church's most sacred rites carry the weight and importance of a fraternity rush.

All this talk about his religious beliefs on abortion, or where New Jerusalem will be located, simply obfuscate the two most important questions:

1) Can we trust this man to disregard his sacred, eternal oaths, and lead this country as a strict non-sectarian?

2) Should his belief in and loyalty to a cult-like religion such as Mormonism be a deal breaker? Would we overlook the religious beliefs of a Branch Davidian, Jehovah's Witness, Moonie, or even a devout Pentecostal?

We would be probably consider a guy who handles snakes, screams in tongues, and passes out regularly in the aisles of his church as too wacky to be a viable candidate for national office, even he was a slick, good looking, well-spoken, successful business man the other six days of the week. What makes him so different from someone who believes devoutly in temple rituals?


****MY THOUGHTS****

I have really no objection to Mitt Romney other than he cannot seem to use the brilliant mind he possesses to really look into his own church's history, doctrines, and DNA evidence that shows the Mormon faith is built upon pre-supposed theories of truth. In order to be a faithful member of the church, you must be willing to block out any and all sources of information that may damage that belief. And that, to me, seems like more of the same Bush-ism we have been dealing with already. Bush has often bragged about his lack of researching information for himself and instead relies upon members of his cabinet to do all of that for him. And when they are WRONG, he can conveniently blame them, fire them, or otherwise scapegoat them, and keep from absorbing the responsibility himself.

This is what I see in Romney: He believes the church is true. If anyone points out the faults in his belief, he scapegoats the leaders, the prophets, the anti-Mormon writers (i.e. anyone who disagrees with Mormon philosophy and has the nerve to write about it or talk about it to others). He has NOT, in fact, taken the time to research the claims himself, separating fact from fiction, and emerging with the truth. Instead, he has put his trust in others in order to maintain his beliefs, and I don't see how that makes him different from Bush.

Our current president maintains the belief that terrorism lurks around every corner, that Saddam's removal has everything to do with countering that threat, that our presence in Iraq is VITAL to fighting terrorism, and that it is necessary to override constitutional freedoms in order to protect the US from this threat. Anything showing otherwise is disregarded, and when it is finally proven that his logic is faulty, his claims are baseless, what does he do? He blames his advisers, blames the CIA, blames bad intelligence for his decisions. BUT THE MAN WON'T READ FOR HIMSELF. And I can't support that.

This country needs an intelligent person at the helm, who will be ready to give up their paradigm for the truth and pursue a course of action that will truly be in the best interest of the country, even if it means letting go of widely held beliefs that we as a nation are the mightiest thing on the planet and we can do no wrong. That kind of attitude is what is getting us killed overseas. That kind of superiority and pridefullness will be our downfall if we cannot look at facts objectively and set aside our personal wishes for the betterment of our world.

I totally agreed with Bill Maher on a recent episode of "Real Time".

He basically pointed out that Mormons believe in things that can (and have been) proven false. Joseph Smith started the church less than two centuries ago, and it's not difficult to prove that most of his teachings, if not all, are false. Case in point: The Mormons believe that the Native Americans are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. DNA tests have proven that this is a false belief, no question about it. And the Mormon reaction is to try to discredit the research and call it "inconclusive", simply because it doesn't uphold their viewpoint YET. So, they will continue to hold out on the DNA question until it can be 100% conclusive, which will always be statistically impossible, and THEY KNOW THIS!

If Mitt Romney would just acknowledge that DNA shows Native Americans are not Israelites, I would vote for him. But first, he has to prove the ability to think for himself and not rely on "advisers", spiritual or otherwise...