WASHINGTON
(By Nancy Gibbs, Time May 21, 2007 —
John F. Kennedy's election in 1960 was supposed to have laid the
"religious question" to rest, yet it arises again with a fury. What
does the Constitution mean when it says there should be no religion
test for office? It plainly means that a candidate can't be barred
from running because he or she happens to be a Quaker or a Buddhist
or a Pentecostal. But Mitt Romney's candidacy raises a broader
issue: Is the substance of private beliefs off-limits? You can ask
if a candidate believes in school vouchers and vote for someone else
if you disagree with the answer. But can you ask if he believes that
the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Mo., as the Mormon
founder taught, and vote against him on the grounds of that answer?
Or, for that matter, because of the kind of underwear he wears?
Slate editor Jacob Weisberg threw down the challenge after
reviewing some of Joseph Smith's more extravagant assertions. "He
was an obvious con man," Weisberg wrote. "Romney has every right to
believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I
don't want him running the country." That argument, counters author
and radio host Hugh Hewitt, amounts to unashamed bigotry and opens
the door to any person of any faith who runs for office being called
to account for the mysteries of personal belief. He has published A
Mormon in the White House?, a chronicle of Romney's rise as business
genius, Olympic savior, political star. But Hewitt has a religious
mission as well when he cites a survey in which a majority of
Evangelicals said voting for a Mormon was out of the question. If
that general objection means they would not consider Romney in 2008,
Hewitt warns, then prejudice is legitimized, and "it will prove a
disastrous turning point for all people of faith in public life."
The Mormon question has settled in right next to the issue of
whether a twice-divorced man has credibility discussing family
values or whether changing one's mind on an issue like abortion is a
sign of moral growth or cynical retreat. Unlike in 1960, today the
argument is less about the role of religion in public life than in
private. It is about what our faith says about our judgment and how
our traditions shape our instincts--and about what we have the right
to ask those who run for the highest office in the land.
Whenever the subject of Romney's "Mormon problem" arises, a whole
host of commentators offer the same solution: all Romney has to do
is "pull a J.F.K.," they say, meaning he needs to make a
game-changing speech of the kind Kennedy delivered in September 1960
to the growling Protestant ministers of greater Houston. Kennedy
declared that he viewed the separation of church and state as
sacred; his religious beliefs, he said, were his private affair.
"But if the time should ever come," he vowed, "... when my office
would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the
national interest, then I would resign the office." Romney has
echoed Kennedy's sentiments, declaring that he would no more take
orders from Salt Lake City than Kennedy would from Rome. But he can
hardly suggest to the devout voters of the G.O.P. base that
religious views don't matter, don't warrant discussion or don't
affect one's conduct in office. These are voters inclined to think
the wall of church-state separation is too high; it is certainly not
one any candidate can hide behind. So his challenge is to draw the
lines about what's relevant and what's not.
Compared with the Roman Catholic Church, which had 42 million
U.S. members in 1960, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (LDS) is newer and less familiar, its rituals more private.
Romney supporters are offering Mormonism 101, emphasizing hard work,
clean living and shared family values, to address the concerns of
the 29% of Americans who say they would not vote for an LDS member
for President. But when it comes to religiously conservative voters,
the more people learn, the greater Romney's problem may become. And
he will have to decide whether he's willing to provide the kind of
public theology lesson that no other candidate has been asked to
deliver.
Many Evangelicals have been taught that Mormonism is a cult with
a heretical understanding of Scripture and doctrine. Mormons reject
the unified Trinity and teach that God has a body of flesh and
blood. Though Mormons revere Christ as Saviour and certainly call
themselves Christians, the church is rooted in a rebuke to
traditional Christianity. Joseph Smith presented himself as a
prophet whom God had instructed to restore his true church, since
"all their creeds were an abomination in his sight." He described
how an angel named Moroni provided him with golden tablets that told
the story (written in what Smith called "reformed Egyptian"
hieroglyphics, never seen before) of an ancient civilization of
Israelites sent by God to America. The tablets included lessons
Jesus taught during a visit to America after his Resurrection. Smith
was able to read and translate the tablets with the help of special
transparent stones he used as spectacles. He published them as the
Book of Mormon in 1830.
Twelve years later, Smith explained to a Chicago newspaper that
"ignorant translators, careless transcribers or designing and
corrupt priests have committed many errors" in the Bible, which he
revised according to God's revelations. Mormons were subject to
persecutions, and in 1844, as he was running for President, Smith
was murdered by an angry mob. His successor, Brigham Young, led
followers to Utah, the church proceeded to grow rapidly, and Mormon
leaders were identified by the church as God's prophets on earth.
At all but the top level, the church is sustained by Mormon men
volunteering as lay leaders. Romney was bishop of a ward, or
congregation, and eventually president of a stake in Boston, meaning
he was responsible for 14 wards with a total of some 3,000 members.
Women cannot serve in priestly roles, nor could African Americans
until a new revelation brought a change of policy in 1978. Should
Romney have to account for such church practices? When he married
Ann, a Mormon convert, in 1969 in the temple in Salt Lake City, her
family could not attend the ceremony since only Mormons are allowed
inside. A separate ceremony was held for "gentiles," as non- Mormons
are called.
Conservative Christians don't much like the idea that the Bible
is corrupted or that its truths could be updated. The conflicts run
deep enough that in 2001 the Vatican ruled Mormon baptisms invalid,
and even the more liberal Presbyterians and United Methodists
require that Mormons looking to convert be rebaptized. Southern
Baptists have called Utah "a stronghold of Satan," and there are
many bookshelves' worth of anti-Mormon literature in circulation.
The church's aggressive missionary work is a particular challenge to
other professing churches, which believe that converts to Mormonism
are not truly saved.
But old traditions of theological hostility conflict with
constitutional traditions of religious tolerance and a modern trend
toward political détente. When Jerry Falwell founded the Moral
Majority in 1979, he was happy to welcome conservative Catholics and
Mormons and Jews to increase his organization's throw weight on
social issues. The fact that Romney personally emphasizes family,
service and sobriety and opposes abortion and gay marriage has led
some evangelical leaders to adopt a kind of "Don't ask, don't tell"
policy when it comes to details of his faith. Romney has held quiet
meetings around the country, and they have come away, by and large,
impressed. "Southern Baptists understand they are voting for a
Commander in Chief, not a Theologian in Chief," says Richard Land,
president of the Southern Baptist Convention's public-policy arm.
"But he's gotta close the deal. Only Romney can make voters
comfortable with his Mormonism. Others cannot do it for him."
They're certainly willing to help, however. Pat Robertson invited
Romney to give the commencement address at his Regent University,
and the group Evangelicals for Mitt argues that religious
conservatives are just as capable of separating faith and politics
as liberal Democrats were when they elevated the highest-ranking
Mormon in politics: Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid.
Romney's strategists are well aware that the deadliest campaigns
in Republican primaries are often the ones waged below the radar.
But in this age it is impossible to track every scurrilous e-mail or
answer every blog assault. "There are caricatures that pick some
obscure aspect of your faith that you never even think about and
assume that it was the central element of the church," Romney says,
noting that Mormon leaders past and present "said all sorts of
things, but they're not church doctrine." Both Romney and wife Ann
regularly make a punch line of the fact that he's the only leading
Republican contender who is still on his first marriage. And for the
record, Romney's great-grandfather, who had five wives, was the last
polygamist in the family line.
That still leaves the concerns of more secular voters. Weisberg
observes that modern political discourse seems to permit the
exploration of candidates' every secret except their most basic
philosophical beliefs: "The crucial distinction is between someone's
background and heritage, which they don't choose, and their views,
which they do choose and which are central to the question of
whether someone has the capacity to serve in the highest office in
the country." He would raise the same concerns, he notes, about a
Jew or a Methodist who believed the earth is less than 6,000 years
old. Weisberg's characterization of Mormonism as "Scientology plus
125 years" did not stop Romney from naming L. Ron Hubbard's
Battlefield Earth a favorite novel. "Someone who believes, seriously
believes, in a modern hoax is someone we should think hard about,"
Weisberg argues, "whether they have the skepticism and intellectual
seriousness to take on this job."
Hewitt counters that Romney is facing a double standard, born of
a barely hidden bias. "It is unreasonable to demand that a Mormon
candidate expose and defend his deepest beliefs in rational terms in
order to reassure voters that he is of sound mind," he says. He
warns Evangelicals hostile to Romney's religion against colluding
with those he sees as hostile to all religions. "The secular left
that does not like people of faith in the public square is very
happy to have a group of Fundamentalists raise this issue and be a
battering ram," Hewitt argues. But if purely theological challenge
becomes acceptable, he says, your own theology will be next: Which
miracles do you believe in; what about this contradiction in
Scripture?
Romney's inspiration going forward may come less from Kennedy
than from Dwight Eisenhower, whom Romney reveres to such an extent,
he told the Atlantic Monthly, that he asked his grandchildren to
call him "Ike" and Ann "Mamie." It was Eisenhower who presided over
the first National Prayer Breakfast, saw the addition of "under God"
to the Pledge of Allegiance and IN GOD WE TRUST to dollar bills, and
declared that "our form of government has no sense unless it is
founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it
is." There has always been a certain virtue in vagueness when it
comes to presidential piety, and Eisenhower, a Presbyterian convert
raised by Jehovah's Witnesses, benefited from discussing
spirituality in the most general terms. Romney has repeatedly said
that "I think the American people want a person of faith to lead the
country. I don't think Americans care what brand of faith someone
has."
"Romney has a bigger problem and a smaller problem than Kennedy,"
argues Richard N. Ostling, co-author of Mormon America: The Power
and the Promise. "Bigger because the distance between the Mormon
faith and conventional Judeo-Christian faith is wider. On the other
hand, I think Americans are more tolerant than they once were."
There are now two Buddhists and a Muslim in the House of
Representatives. Is the U.S. open to electing someone from a new,
different or marginal religious group? To Romney's disciples, it's
an article of faith that the answer is yes.