Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, July 22, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document God '08: Whose, and How Much, Will Voters Accept?

by Michael Luo, NYTimes.com

Thanks to Catalin Sandu for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/weekinreview/22luo.html

THE probing about his Mormon beliefs has by now become familiar to the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But when Mary Van Steenis, a teacher at a local Christian school, took the microphone at a recent "Ask Mitt Anything" forum in Pella, Iowa, to ask her question, it still felt as if some sort of unspoken boundary of social etiquette had been breached.

graphic thumbMrs. Van Steenis wanted Mr. Romney to say where the Book of Mormon would figure in his decision making as president.

"Where would the Bible be?" she asked. "Would it be above the Book of the Mormon, or would it be beneath it?"

Although the Constitution bars any religious test for office, if polls are to be believed, Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, faces a serious obstacle to winning the presidency because of his faith. Surveys show a substantial percentage of Americans would be less likely to vote for a Mormon, or for that matter a Muslim or an atheist. But how rigid is that sentiment?

The answer, of course, is complicated. Historical precedent and other polling information offer clues that many voters are willing to make at least certain concessions when it comes to a candidate's religious observance when they pull the curtain behind them in the voting booth.

But could voters accept a president who believes in the Book of Mormon? What about one who believes in the Old Testament but not the New? Or one who venerates Muhammad, or Buddha?

There does seem to be at least one bottom line for many voters: belief in God.

"This is a deeply religious nation by many standards," said Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University. "They want their leaders to be believers. They want them to believe in something higher, to have a moral framework as they lead the country."

Indeed, the religion test imposed by voters has evolved over the years, said John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

As has been widely noted, Mr. Romney's situation has parallels to John F. Kennedy's in 1960. In 1928, pervasive anti-Catholic sentiment helped derail Al Smith's bid for the presidency. Several decades later, however, Kennedy managed to turn back similar questions, declaring before a gathering of Southern Baptist ministers in Houston that he would resign from public office if there were ever a conflict between his religion and the national interest.

Kennedy's decision to confront the issue directly helped alleviate the fears of many Protestants. Mr. Romney's aides said he was now weighing whether to do something similar.

Polls in recent years have shown a clear shift in religious considerations. The vast majority of Americans at this point, said Mr. Green, care less about sectarian affiliation, at least among members of faiths that are now perceived to be part of the American mainstream — Protestants, Catholics and most recently Jews — and more generally about whether the candidate believes in God and how that lends itself to a moral framework.

A national telephone survey released earlier this year by the Pew Research Center asked which traits, including being black, a woman, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a homosexual, would help or hurt a candidate the most. The worst trait for a candidate to possess? "Doesn't believe in God."

The basic standard might help explain why the Republican frontrunner in national polls, Rudolph W. Giuliani, a divorced Roman Catholic who favors abortion rights and has studiously sidestepped questions about his spiritual beliefs and church attendance, is still faring well among many evangelical Christians.

Even though little is known about his spiritual practices, Mr. Giuliani, who grew up attending Catholic schools and even considered being a priest at one point, is at least a part of a mainstream church. He has also sought to demonstrate something of a moral backbone by sticking to his stance on abortion, despite its unpopularity among the Republican base.

When Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an observant Jew, became the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, few raised any serious concerns about his religion. Christian conservatives liked his championing of religious values in the public square but voted overwhelmingly for the Bush-Cheney ticket anyway.

Skepticism persists, however, about those who belong to certain religious minorities. The Pew survey, for example, found 46 percent would be less likely to vote for a Muslim presidential candidate.

Nevertheless, the 110th Congress, which took office this year, included for the first time, two Buddhists and a Muslim.

An important part of overcoming the suspicions of voters, said Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat and the only Muslim ever elected to Congress, is to allow them to get to know the candidate as an individual.

"Could we elect a Muslim, or a Mormon, or someone from any other minority religion, is a different question from, 'Could we elect Keith Ellison to represent the Fifth Congressional District,' " Mr. Ellison said. "Could we elect Mitt Romney? He's a Mormon, but it's not the only thing there is about Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney does not just represent Mormonism. Mormonism informs him, but he is fundamentally an individual. I think people are going to get that."

Mormons at this point only represent about 1.5 percent of the population. In the Pew survey, 30 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate.

When challenged about his beliefs, Mr. Romney has sought to emphasize points of commonality with Protestants and Catholics, often asserting that he considers Jesus Christ his lord and savior.

But Charles W. Dunn, dean of the school of government at Regent University, founded by the religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, advised caution on this approach.

"That doesn't play well with let's say an evangelical audience," he said. "Doctrinally, they understand, 'No, we don't worship the same God. We don't have the same approach.' "

Instead, he said, like Kennedy before him, Mr. Romney should seek to emphasize religious tolerance. Indeed, Mr. Romney's response to Mrs. Van Steenis ultimately settled on this message.

"This is a nation where people come from different faiths, different doctrines, different churches," Mr. Romney said. "But, unlike the people we're fighting over in the Middle East, we don't have a religious test to say who should be able to run our country. It's over there where people say, 'You don't go to my church, you can't run our country.' "

When he finished, his audience applauded.

Comments 1 - 17 of 17 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #57933 by DV82XL on July 22, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Of course this means we have to believe that a politician claiming belief in an imaginary friend is telling the truth.

In as much as they lie about everything else, or at least adjust their views to suit the mood of the electorate, I'll bet that most of them gave up on religion long ago.

Other Comments by DV82XL

2. Comment #57935 by Quetzalcoatl on July 22, 2007 at 12:45 pm

 avatar
"But, unlike the people we're fighting over in the Middle East, we don't have a religious test to say who should be able to run our country. It's over there where people say, 'You don't go to my church, you can't run our country.' "


That's true. Americans just say "If you don't go to ANY church, you can't run our country". So much more enlightened.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

3. Comment #57952 by Duff on July 22, 2007 at 3:36 pm

The real question people should ask Romney is whether or not he believes in the Mormon belief that the Mormon Priesthood will someday save the constitution. That is an historical Mormon belief that not many non-Mormons seems to be aware of. Of course, by itself, it isn't such a bad thing to believe that they will "save" the constitution, but its implication is that an "inspired" member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will rise to the presidency and lead this country into a Mormon millenium. Every Mormon today is wondering: Is Romney our great leader who will save the constition? Zeus help us!

Other Comments by Duff

4. Comment #57960 by Mango on July 22, 2007 at 4:24 pm

 avatar
When challenged about his beliefs, Mr. Romney has sought to emphasize points of commonality with Protestants and Catholics, often asserting that he considers Jesus Christ his lord and savior.


Jesus is a litmus test for the electorate. How wonderfully discerning the common people are.

Other Comments by Mango

5. Comment #57966 by Rtambree on July 22, 2007 at 5:20 pm

I'd be interested to know how many American atheists on this site voted for a religious candidate (e.g. Bush, Gore, Kerry) instead of an irreligious candidate (e.g. Nader) in the last two elections.

Other Comments by Rtambree

6. Comment #57975 by Fedler on July 22, 2007 at 6:04 pm

 avatarRtambree,

I never voted for Bush either time. I voted for Gore in the first one and Kerry in the second election. With only the imperfect perspective of hindsight, I can only assume that things would be better here in the U.S. if one of them were elected.

Re: irreligious candidates. Nader was so far down the ballot that I don't I ever recall hearing about his religious beliefs. He was mostly ignored by the electorate and didn't get much press (at least not nearly as funded for publicity as the other candidates). However, I can remember reading a synopsis of the positions of the candidates on issues and discounting him because I thought others had better visions for the future and the plans to get them done.

Other Comments by Fedler

7. Comment #57984 by Donald on July 22, 2007 at 6:47 pm

[In 1960], Kennedy managed to turn back similar questions, declaring before a gathering of Southern Baptist ministers in Houston that he would resign from public office if there were ever a conflict between his religion and the national interest.

[Rommney, 2007]"This is a nation where people come from different faiths, different doctrines, different churches," Mr. Romney said. "But, unlike the people we're fighting over in the Middle East, we don't have a religious test to say who should be able to run our country. It's over there where people say, 'You don't go to my church, you can't run our country.' "

Anyone notice the difference?
Fifty years ago, the emphasis was on the national interest. Now, it's about how much religion, or which religion, the candidate has.

It's a profound difference. Religion has gained ground, and secularism has lost ground. The musketeers are fighting back. It's rather little, rather late. Intelligent well-educated people have known for thousands of years that "gods" are a human invention and are not real. Although modern scientific knowledge has enornously strengthened the case against "god", and slightly increased the proportion of people who disbelieve, religions thrive and have gained ground even while scientific knowledge further undercuts their credibility.

Western religions thrive by continually adjusting themselves, Islam succeeds by sticking to a proven formula.

Historically, the most successful religions, Islam and Catholicism, have grown until checked by violence. The French revolution, Henry VIII burning churches, the protestant revolutions against the Popes elsewhere in Europe, were the means by which the Catholic Church was curbed and contained hundreds of years ago. Islam had previously been checked by the crusades, which were a counter-attack more than an attempt at expansionism. Islam in Turkey was restrained by violent and repressive means by Ataturk, the reasons for his measures now forgotten by modern turks who say "remove the restrictions". Saddam Hussain was an evil tyrant, who used violence to suppress religious groups, but those groups now operate with little restraint.

The reasons for the violence tend to be forgotten over time, until new generations discover the same forces at work, and violence errupts again, to the surprise of people who thought all that belonged in a primitive past.

Are mild measures, such as a book by Dawkins, sufficient to turn the tide in the 21st century? Of course, I hope so.

Other Comments by Donald

8. Comment #57989 by Mister_X on July 22, 2007 at 7:14 pm

"Nevertheless, the 110th Congress, which took office this year, included for the first time, two Buddhists and a Muslim."

Excuse me. What about U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Cali.)?

http://www.secular.org/news/congress_110.html#stark

He identifies himself as a non-theist and is representing California's 13th district. Anyone?

Other Comments by Mister_X

9. Comment #57994 by flistr8 on July 22, 2007 at 7:47 pm

 avatarI just finished reading Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation". In his conclusion, he says he doesn't see much chance of the world experiencing an end to religion in our lifetime. I would concur, sadly. We, who populate this forum and others like us, non-believers, are the cutting edge of this transformation. While the masses fuss over whose imaginary friend is best, we at least get to savor the freedom of rational thought.

In response to Rtambree, I voter against Bush in both elections. I never detected Nader's "irreligion-ness" as a part of his platform. I would be most interested in hearing a candidate profess a humanist/atheist worldview. That person would have to be ready to debate the faithers on a level of Harris or Dawkins.

Other Comments by flistr8

10. Comment #58051 by wagnerpe on July 23, 2007 at 6:46 am

There does seem to be at least one bottom line for many voters: belief in God.


Fine, I want to see a Pastafarian in the White House.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

11. Comment #58053 by Quetzalcoatl on July 23, 2007 at 6:55 am

 avatar
Fine, I want to see a Pastafarian in the White House


Screw that. I want a worshipper of the Aztec Pantheon.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

12. Comment #58062 by automath on July 23, 2007 at 8:18 am

 avatar
"This is a deeply religious nation by many standards," said Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University. "They want their leaders to be believers. They want them to believe in something higher, to have a moral framework as they lead the country."


Them wanting their leader to have a god complex and a 'moral' framework taken from a 'holy' book doesn't inspire me with much confidence for the future.

Other Comments by automath

13. Comment #58070 by danceswithanxiety on July 23, 2007 at 9:07 am

 avatar
"Where would the Bible be?" she asked. "Would it be above the Book of the Mormon, or would it be beneath it?"


Where would evidence, logic, and reason be? Above or below any given book of fables?

Sheesh. This is a scary country.

Other Comments by danceswithanxiety

14. Comment #58084 by stephenray on July 23, 2007 at 11:00 am

The problem, it seems to me, is that it's perfectly reasonable to say 'If you don't believe in my god, you can't run my country.'

That's (one of) the problem(s) with religion.

Other Comments by stephenray

15. Comment #58086 by AWACS77 on July 23, 2007 at 11:06 am

 avatarSo if a candidate should say that there faith has no bearing on their political decisions, do we believe them or do you think they say that just to keep secularists from going up in arms?

Other Comments by AWACS77

16. Comment #58101 by posiedon on July 23, 2007 at 1:23 pm

 avatar
The vast majority of Americans at this point, said Mr. Green, care less about sectarian affiliation, at least among members of faiths that are now perceived to be part of the American mainstream — Protestants, Catholics and most recently Jews — and more generally about whether the candidate believes in God and how that lends itself to a moral framework.

So it doesn't matter which version of the sky fairy you believe, so long as you believe one of them?
Jeeeezus H christ!
I am currently reading Noam Chomsky "Failed States". These are the people who want to run the world, I'm glad I have already had most of my life, and I have no kids.

Other Comments by posiedon

17. Comment #58127 by TinyRobot on July 23, 2007 at 3:13 pm

''So if a candidate should say that there faith has no bearing on their political decisions, do we believe them or do you think they say that just to keep secularists from going up in arms?''

This is an interesting question to an extent. My response would be that if a candidate (or rather just a politician in general) can lay out the reasons for their policies, and if their reasons are ones that largely speak for themselves (as all good reasons should do). i.e. if they are willing to submit to an objectively debateable reasoning process (and i can disagree with them if they wish) then i don't care how their religion affects their decision-making. It's only if they say something like 'God says this is the way to do things and thats good enough for me' that i'd have a problem. Dan Dennett talked about this in an interview with charlie rose (i think! it's on google video somewhere). Rose was goading him a bit about the role of god in politics and, more importanly, decision-making. Dennett said 'My friend Alice says you're wrong!' 'Whose Alice?' 'A friend of mine, she's always right about everything'.

For anyone who doesn't get it, replace alice with God and you'll see the problem. It's only when the god card is played (with nothing to back it up) that the problem really arises. Incidentally that wasn't a transcript of the interview or anything, just the general gist of it.

The point is similar to that made above by danceswithanxiety. If the bible is to play any role at all in decision-making by the most powerful man in the world then it should only be to the extent that it accords with logic, evidence and reason (and it rarely does so).

Other Comments by TinyRobot
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: