The way I see it, Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith shouldn’t interfere with his ability to do the duties of a president anymore than Harry Reid’s Mormon faith interferes with his ability to serve as Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Mr. Romney would be a terrible president, but his faith doesn’t concern me and I don’t think it should be an issue in the campaign. But the same is true of President Obama’s faith. Obviously, both the Church of Latter Day Saints and the traditional urban black church have elements that are far outside the experience of the majority of Americans, and both candidates can be effectively attacked for their religious associations. That is going to happen on blogs and in restaurants and bars and office break rooms. But the campaigns and their party organizations should leave the issue alone. The Democratic Party shouldn’t be the anti-Mormon party and the Republicans shouldn’t be the anti-black church party. So, that’s my answer to Jason Horowitz’s question: “Should Romney’s Mormon faith be fair game?”
Yet, I don’t like this:
Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has developed a simple method to determine whether coverage of the candidate’s Mormonism has crossed a line.
“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 a Washington Post article last fall about the candidate’s role as a church leader in Boston.
If they picked a different religion for comparison like, say, Buddhism or Catholicism, I probably wouldn’t be as offended. But when you invoke Judaism, you automatically evoke the Holocaust, and I think that is too aggressive. I understand that the Mormons have experienced some very thorough, and violent, persecution, but this method of fighting back against the press doesn’t seem to be fair play to me.
First, it inappropriately does what we call in philosophy “begging the question.” What question is that, you ask? Well, the question is whether Mormonism is a religion or a cult. When we agree not to make Mormonism an issue, we’re agreeing not to engage in theological examinations. But when the Romney campaign insists, for example, that there’s no difference between Moses receiving the Ten Commandments and Joseph Smith digging up the golden plates, they’re forcing us to concede the point or be accused of religious bigotry. When we agree out of politeness and a sense of respect for private beliefs not to question to veracity of the central story of Mormonism, we should not have that story’s accuracy thrust in our face. Horowitz paraphrases Michael Purdy, media relations director for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as saying, “as a relatively young religion, Mormonism does not enjoy the authenticating quality of antiquity. Because it came of age in a modern time, its theology and saintly visitations can strike people as stranger than those of older religions shrouded by centuries.” And here is Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul:
“Would you write this sentence in describing the Jewish faith?” Saul asked in a November e-mail, adding: “ ‘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.’ Of course not, yet you reference a similar story in Mormonism.”
Both Purdy and Saul raise valid points, but they are points that they expect us not to discuss. What they’re saying is really an invitation to start a theological discussion, not a rationale for shutting down a theological discussion. When they make a straightforward comparison between the prophetic age of Judiasm and Christianity and 19th-Century America, they’re forcing us to question whether the story of Moses is historically accurate. Did angels really visit Mary? When did the prophetic age end, and why? How literally do Jews take the story of Moses? What’s the Christian equivalent of a Mormon in terms of Holy Book literalism?
Second, once they open this door, we have to consider Romney’s rather exalted position within his Church. If he were a Catholic, he’d be considered a cardinal or bishop. At least, he has served that role for a time. He isn’t just some guy who was raised in the faith and never really questioned it.
As for Romney, church officials said it is up to the candidate how much he divulges about his beliefs and his role within the church. “But it is a matter of public record that he served as a Mormon bishop and a stake president, which is somewhat a larger responsibility,” said Michael Otterson, the church’s head of worldwide public affairs. “It is up to him to decide if he wants to talk about that.”
When Romney was a student at BYU, some colleges refused to compete athletically against the school because of their ban on blacks in the priesthood. Romney, apparently, took the side of the church hierarchy. He’s since said he is relieved that the ban was reversed, but there are many potential avenues of attack if the Romney campaign wants to open up that can of worms.
Finally, the press has a difficult task. To see how difficult, all you have to do is read Horowitz’s piece. He’s obviously walking on eggshells. They’re being very aggressively asked to treat Mormonism as a religion as established and uncontroversial as Judaism, and any questioning of the religion is being overtly compared to the kind of anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust. But Mormonism is controversial.. There are voters out there who won’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon, just as there are voters out there who won’t vote for Obama because of Jeremiah Wright. It’s a story. The press will be criticized no matter how they choose to deal with it. But they shouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied.
