Am I A Bigot?

Marc Ambinder asks some good questions about Mormonism and politics, including number two "Are those who object to Mormonism on theological and doctrinal grounds religious bigots?" I think the answer there needs to be a clear "no." Obviously, people are going to disagree about theological matters and there's nothing wrong with that. The question of bigotry concerns the possibility of irrational prejudice against people who subscribe to the tenets of Mormonism. Clearly, an aversion to the idea of a Mormon president exists out there. Some of this, perhaps, is bigotry. But some isn't. For example, Marc asks "Is Mormonism objectively similar to widely accepted variants of evangelical Christian theology?"

In other words: Is Mormonism a kind of Christianity? In some ways, it's not really my place to judge. But obviously a lot of Christians think it isn't. And I think they have a plausible case. (Not just Evangelicals, either, the Catholic Church says Mormon baptisms are invalid). Nothing wrong with not being a Christian, but the fly in the ointment is that Mormons say they are Christians. To me, this isn't a big deal. But that's because, not being a Christian, I don't really care about the integrity of Christianity.

But I'll say this: Like most Jewish Americans, I'm perfectly reconciled to the fact that there are all these Christians running around and I think I harbor no prejudice against them. But I really don't care for "Jews for Jesus." The problem isn't that Jews for Jesus aren't real Jews; the problem is that they aren't real Jews but insist on saying they are. Now if faced with the choice between a Democratic Jew for Jesus promising universal health care (yes! even via a mandate), fully auctioned carbon permits, an end to the war in Iraq, a grand bargain with Iran, etc. and a conservative Republican or Joe Lieberman or what have you, sure, I'd cast a ballot for someone who's religious views bug me. But given the choice between a Jew for Jesus and a plausible alternative candidate, I think I'd go for the plausible alternative. Insofar as there are orthodox Christians out there thinking they'd rather not vote for a Mormon along similar lines, I can certainly sympathize with that, especially since the best case one can make for Romney on the merits is that maybe he doesn't believe any of the things he's saying.

Comments

Now if faced with the choice between a Democratic Jew for Jesus promising universal health care (yes! even via a mandate), fully auctioned carbon permits, an end to the war in Iraq . . .

looks like you got to him, petey.

Posted by southpaw | December 5, 2007 5:50 PM

The issue of the Catholic church not recognizing (it's actually a little more conditional than that) Mormon Baptisms really doesn't relate to whether or not Mormons (the LDS, I believe they prefer) are Christians. The Catholic Church sets certain criteria for not offering conditional baptism to new members through RCIA, one of which, for instance, is that the baptism was "in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit." By that standard Unitarians, and, I believe, some Baptists, are rebaptised on converting to Catholicism, but there is no implication that they are "not Christians." Now they may be "grossly deficient with respect to salvation," but that's a whole other trope.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | December 5, 2007 5:54 PM

No.

No.

Why in the hell would it be?

Yes.

Hell yes.

How would you even do that?

Obviously not, he's a fucking windsock.

Only if definitions of "God" and "salvation" don't matter to you, no.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 5, 2007 5:56 PM

Matt-

Your stereotypes are showing.

Who gets to decide what a "real Jew" is? Aren't there a ton of ultraorthodox Jews who would say you aren't a Jew?

Similarly, who gets to decide what a "real Christian" is?

I'm fine if, say, the Pope wants to say Mormons aren't Roman Catholic, but I don't know of any body with authority for determining what a Christian is. Sure, there are many bodies that can say, "You aren't this type of Christian, which is the type that this body runs/represents/administers," but given that there is no body with jurisdiction over all Christianity, how can someone else say that a specific person isn't a Christian?

Posted by vorkosigan1 | December 5, 2007 5:56 PM

"looks like you got to him, petey."

Good for Matthew.

Posted by Petey | December 5, 2007 5:59 PM

"Who gets to decide what a "real Jew" is?"

If your answer is 'nobody,' vorkosigan, then 'Jew' means nothing at all.

Tthink of this like the proof for the human causation of global warming. The overwhelming consensus matters.

Posted by gussie | December 5, 2007 6:01 PM

When I was a good little Baptist boy back in the late '70s, my Church Training class did a unit on false religions. (Church Training was the Sunday evening equivalent of Sunday School -- who knows if it's still around?) In any event, we spent probably 75% of our time on Mormonism, which clearly was meant to repulse us. I remember passing around a Book of Mormon like contraband. This made a real impression on me.

Speaking of Jews for Jesus, my wife is an atheist Jew and really resents the idea that Jews have to practice the religion to claim true membership in the tribe. Her Jewish identity, a source of enormous pride to her, is bound up with ethnicity, culture, history, even genes -- she is a carrier for a pretty bad recessive disease unique to the Ashkenazi population. You can't exactly argue she isn't Jewish just because she doesn't believe in God, although plenty of religious Jews in New York have done just that over the years.

If she's right, then can't the Jews for Jesus claim to be authentic Jews who have just converted to another religion? Just asking.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | December 5, 2007 6:01 PM

Ah, more seemingly intelligent people debating the size of their imaginery friends cocks. I am just so thankful I was born in 2007, and not say, 3007, when this BS will be long-gone.

Posted by JFD | December 5, 2007 6:03 PM

But given the choice between a Jew for Jesus and a plausible alternative candidate, I think I'd go for the plausible alternative.

Replace "Jew for Jesus" with "Jew" and then ask the question "Am I a bigot" again.

Posted by Jinchi | December 5, 2007 6:03 PM

"Who gets to decide what a "real Jew" is?"

The Pope of the Jews gets to decide, whom I believe is currently Alan Dershowitz. In fact, I hear that Matthew is going to be excommunicated for his AIPAC heresies.

Posted by Petey | December 5, 2007 6:03 PM

Vorkosigan wrote:
"no body with jurisdiction over all Christianity, how can someone else say that a specific person isn't a Christian?"

There's no governing body that tells us when a comedy is funny or not. But if enough people vote with their attention and laughter, it can become popularly known as "funny."

Religion is like funny in some ways.

Posted by blatherskite | December 5, 2007 6:04 PM

1. I think we all agree that people who believe Jesus is a fictional character are not Christians even if they call themselves such.

2. In the same light people who believe Jesus is the messiah are not jews even they call themselves jews.

3. As for whether Matt is being bigoted. I can only agree with the above poster who said:

"Replace "Jew for Jesus" with "Jew" and then ask the question "Am I a bigot" again.

Posted by Dave | December 5, 2007 6:11 PM

You are a bigot if you object to someone solely on the grounds that he/she is not a "real" this or that, however you judge what a "real" this or that is.

I object to someone running for public office who would act according to non-shared religious beliefs - for example someone who claimed to make decisions on the basis of direct commands from God or from the Pope, or who said that the Bible must be obeyed literally. This could conceivably apply to non-religious people acting according to some objectionable non-religious moral principle, but this is moot as non-religious people are not allowed to run.

Posted by skeptonomist | December 5, 2007 6:14 PM

"2. In the same light people who believe Jesus is the messiah are not jews even they call themselves jews."

I should add that I mean in a religous sense and not a ethnic sense.

Posted by Dave | December 5, 2007 6:15 PM

George W. Bush walked into the White House Press Room in 2003 and said that his conversations with "God" gave him the strength and courage to invade Iraq.

Replace 'God' with 'Astrological Sign' and imagine the outcry. You people are all fucking nuts.

Posted by JFD | December 5, 2007 6:16 PM

Who cares about any of this stuff? Why?

Posted by abb1 | December 5, 2007 6:16 PM

What about folks who believe Jesus is not a fictional character but also not the messiah, Dave? Can they call themselves Californians or not?

Posted by Petey | December 5, 2007 6:19 PM

Matt,

I think you missed the J4J v. real Jew point. The former clearly disdains the latter and actively seeks to replace them by converting them. It's not simply that they're not "real" Jews, but they're mostly conservative Christians in all but name only.

Just look at Holy Land in Orlando, and why it exists.

The point is that evangelicals may preach and proselytize, but they're not actively condemning my core religious belief.

And that Hitchens article was priceless.

Posted by Seth Davis | December 5, 2007 6:20 PM

Does this line of reasoning work for race and gender and sexual? All things being equal, is it non-bigoted for me to go for the gay white male, or the straight black female, or whatever I happen to identify with?

Posted by Egypt Steve | December 5, 2007 6:20 PM

I understand and sympathize with the Jewish dislike and suspicion of "Jews for Jesus", but I don't understand the attempts to rationally justify it. Because the fundamental fact of the matter is that being Jewish is indisputably an ethnicity at least as much as it is a religious affiliation. In this context, "Jews for Jesus" is not oxymoronic if one assumes that this community is asserting the legitimacy of a Jewish ethnic identity coupled with a Christian religious affiliation.

It seems particularly odd to me that many Jews would complain about "Jews for Jesus" when it's pretty well established, even among the Orthodox (am I wrong about this?) that non-practicing—even atheistic—Jews have as valid a claim to "Jewishness" as any other Jew. Unlike other religions, inclusion is a matter of heridity—this is the policy of Israel and agreed upon by the Orthodox and Reformed, both. It's not a matter of belief or practice—therefore, as being a Christian is only a matter of belief and practice, such an affiliation does not conflict with a Jewish ethnic affiliation.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | December 5, 2007 6:23 PM

In America, Judaism is a ethnic1/tribal thing, and Christians arenT' aprt of the tribe.

If a Greek-American who was born Ggreek orthodox converts to Islam, is he still a Greek? Is a Pakistani-American who converts to Hinduism still a Paksitani? A lot fo people would have a deep seated, emotional "NO" as an answer.

So lay off Matt and his tribalism. He's hardly the only one who's under its spell.

Posted by Ikram | December 5, 2007 6:26 PM

"In the same light people who believe Jesus is the messiah are not jews even they call themselves jews"

So was Jesus a Jew or wasn't he?

Posted by mad6798j | December 5, 2007 6:27 PM

Oh for the love of Benji.

Clearly, an aversion to the idea of a Mormon president exists out there. Some of this, perhaps, is bigotry. But some isn't.

Here is the obvious question that doesn't get answered by your setup:

"What are the reasons not to vote for a (generic) Mormon based only on the fact that he/she is a Mormon that do not boil down to simple bigotry?"

The answer "They call themselves Christians but I don't think they are" is bigotry. Even the answer "They call themselves Christians but by the tenets of my own faith they are not" is still bigotry. having those opinions in and of themselves is not bigotry BUT using them as a criterion to withhold your vote from someone IS. The question of whether Mormons are Christians has no bearing on the ability of a Mormon to perform the duties of their office. If you can come up with an argument where being Mormon and believing that you are a Christian impairs your ability to perform the duties of the office then I'd consider it valid - but that better be some argument.

Romney's problem is that he needs to garner votes from a large sample of religious bigots to gain the office of president as a Republican. There is no need to excuse the bigotry of the people he's pandering to.

Posted by NonyNony | December 5, 2007 6:27 PM

NonyNony wrote:
"The question of whether Mormons are Christians has no bearing on the ability of a Mormon to perform the duties of their office."

Unfortunately, most americans believe that the President should be christian.

It may be biogoty, and it sure does suck, but it's a majority opinion.

Posted by blatherskite | December 5, 2007 6:37 PM

"If a Greek-American who was born Ggreek orthodox converts to Islam, is he still a Greek? Is a Pakistani-American who converts to Hinduism still a Paksitani? A lot fo people would have a deep seated, emotional "NO" as an answer."

I have gotten this kind of crap in the past from people who think that 'real' Irish people or Irish-Americans can't be anything other than Catholics.

Posted by Kevin | December 5, 2007 6:42 PM

Knowing if Jews for Jesus are in fact "real Jews" is as unknowable as knowing if Mormons are "real Christians".

There is no objective reality in this case. You are a bigot.

Posted by nathan | December 5, 2007 6:49 PM

Replace "Jew for Jesus" with "Jew" and then ask the question "Am I a bigot" again.
This is wrong for a whole number of reasons, including the ethnicity/religion distinction other commenters have already brought up. But also, JfJs are uniquely annoying for much the same reason the Euston Manifesto gang and other liberal hawks are annoying. Both groups claim the mantle of a belief system (Judaism, liberalism) whose foundational principles they then proceed to reject. It isn't hard to see why that would grate.

Posted by Minipundit | December 5, 2007 6:50 PM

I think the most charitable version of Matt's point in this post is:

A. Mormon beliefs on whether they are "Christians" are simply not plausible. (In the same way, the "Jews" part of "Jews for Jesus" is not plausible.)

B. Romney holds these implausible beliefs.

C. Holding such implausible beliefs calls into question Romney's overall judgment.

D. A President who held identical policy positions but whose judgment was not similarly called into question would be preferable.

The problem, of course, is that it's generally forbidden to take the weirdness of a person's religious views as an indication of their reasonableness on non-religious matters. It's not irrational to do so, just taboo. So maybe this isn't bigotry . . . but it is rude?

Posted by southpaw | December 5, 2007 6:52 PM

Re: Are those who object to Mormonism on theological and doctrinal grounds religious bigots?"

Of course not-- if by "reject" you mean not accept the ideas as valid. When it strays over into not accepting the people, then, yes, that is bigotry. I can think of umpteen and one reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney. That he's a Mormon is not one of them.

Re: If a Greek-American who was born Ggreek orthodox converts to Islam, is he still a Greek?

No, but he wasn't before that either: he was an American.

Posted by JonF | December 5, 2007 6:54 PM

A cult can't be considered mainstream until it's about two hundred years old. I'm pretty sure there's a rule to that effect somewhere. Thus Mormons are a cult and are likely to remain so for at least another 25 years.

Jews for Jesus, on the other hand, is offensive because its members are not Jewish, ethnically nor philosophically. Christianists adopted the name as a way of marketing their schlock. It's their dishonesty that makes them so yucky.

Posted by Houston | December 5, 2007 7:02 PM

How about, "they believe insane things like dead people can be married and become gods in other galaxies"?

I wouldn't vote for a Scientologist, either. Would you?

Posted by Bloix | December 5, 2007 7:03 PM

Actually, I think the issue here is: would an LDS President be vulnerable to pressure from the OTHER President, the "president, prophet, seer and revelator" who is the bossman of the Mormon Church.

The same question came up in 1960, and Kennedy was able to reply, in essence, "piss on the Pope, he's not a registered voter."

The Oven Mitt, having tied himself to the Cross for the benefit of the Jesus Voters in the GOP, can't do that. If he says that the LDS President can piss up a rope, he's saying he's not really a Mormon at all. If he doesn't, he sounds like the sock puppet for a religion that many Americans, conservative and liberal alike, consider a teeny bit too culty to be really OK with.

I've always thought that the whole Mormon thing would eventually be a can tied to his tail. It's not quite as bad as being caught being a Scientologist, but it's close for a LOT of people.

Posted by FDChief | December 5, 2007 7:03 PM

JonF- you miss the point. A member of the Greek-American community who left the Greek Orthodox faith would more or less isolate himself from organized Greek-American life - but a member who converted to Islam would be ostracized, because of the historic hostility of the Greeks to their Ottoman Turkish rulers - a hostility that continues to this day. Is it really necessary to say this?

Jews for Jesus presents a similar problem. A Jew who becomes non-observant, or atheist, or even Buddhist, may become somewhat isolated from the Jewish community in America - but a Jew who converts enthusiastically to Christianity is an object of revulsion to his fellow Jews, because of the historic persecution and grotesque anti-Semitism of Christianity and Christian governments towards Jews.

Posted by Bloix | December 5, 2007 7:13 PM

Houston:

um, no. the whole point of "Jews for Jesus" (there's a separate category known as "Messianic Jews" which presents an interesting case) is that they are "ethnically" Jewish but Christian.
but I think it's fair to say that comparing Jewishness to Christian-ness is an apples and oranges comparison.

if terms aren't exclusive at some level than they lose all meaning. certainly not everyone is a Jew and certainly not everyone is a Christian. now who determines the limits is a much stickier question.

at least Catholicism should be easy (the Vatican determines)...however, there are millions of American "Catholics" who seem to have difficulty with the idea that the Vatican can determine who is and isn't a Catholic.

Posted by Nathan | December 5, 2007 7:56 PM

"Replace God with astrological sign..." Hey! No bringing Ronnie into this!

Personally, I think that gauging the plausibility of recent innovations in Sky Fairy Engineering is of little additional use in determining one's political judgment.

Posted by norbizness | December 5, 2007 8:00 PM

I think the difference between Jews for Jesus as Jews and Mormons as Christians has to do with perception as to why each group claims its affiliation.

I think most jews believe that Jews for Jesus (or Messianic jews as I think they now call themselves) do so mostly as a marketing tool. They tend to have no connection to jews, beyond their desire to convert more jews. People don't tend to like having their religion or ethnical identity used as a marketing tool against themselves. Jews are often willing to claim converts to Christianity, but noone wants to be marketed to.

By contrast Mormon's exagerate the role that Jesus plays because they want to be like the cool kids. In that sense Christians should be more flattered than offended. If mormons were claiming to be Christians in order to convince Christians they could safely convert, then I think Christians would be right to be offended.

I could be wrong about the jews for jesus, but I am pretty sure it is the perception by jews that it is a marketing charade that explains the dislike.

Posted by Lon | December 5, 2007 8:02 PM

Matt, about whether the Mormons are Christian... Ok, nearly all people who consider themselves Christian would argue they were because their particular denomination was closest to what Jesus actually believed. Now as a Jew I don't believe that Jesus was the second person of the Holy Trinity, a divine being who had God as His literal father, or the long awaited Messiah. Rather conveniently for me, modern biblical scholarship is inclined to agree with me. I'm not going to get too involved with what Geza Vermes, James D.G. Dunn, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen, E.P. Saunders and John Meier have argued, but if a Christian is one who believes Jesus was the Messiah and Jesus himself did not think this, then by definition all Christians are wrong.

In point of fact the three main branches of Christianity, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism are based on a series of basic propositions that were hammered out in the fourth and fifth centuries after slowly developing over the previous ones. These include the nature of the Trinity, the nature of the Incarnation, and the definition of the New Testament. (One advantage of Catholicism over Protestantism is that Protestantism invokes scripture over Church tradition, but these vital doctrines are clearly the result of church tradition and are not inherent to the text. The resurrection of Jesus is a biblical doctrine, the nature of the Trinity isn't really, quite frankly.)

Now it is clear Mormonism violates this consensus (which I should call Nicean/Chalcedonian after the two most important church councils that decided it) in several crucial respects. First, Mormonism clearly has a different view of the relationship of the nature of the Trinity, Second they have a different view of the nature of Jesus and third, of course, they have added a completely different colletion of scriptures which until the 19th century noone had ever heard of or had the slightest idea ever existed. There are other serious questions (Mormonism has the idea that people can became quasi-divine).

Now here is the key point. The Book of Mormon clearly originated from Joseph Smith, since no one outside the Church of Latter Day Saints believe there was a complex Hebrew civilization in the Western Hemisphere centuries before Columbus. But the origins of these ideas is more complex than that. Earlier this century scholars thought Mormonism derived from evangelical Protestantism, based on the reasonable idea that the first Mormons were overwhelmingly Protestant. In point of fact Mormon ideas can be seen in a variety of unorthodox religious ideas that had been floating around "the Protestant fringe" or "ultra-Protestantism" that had been increasingly percolating since the Reformation, but which were fundamentally unorthodox. To complicate these matters some of these unorthodox ideas have kinship with more respectable Christian thinkers. If you really want to know about this topic you MUST read Christopher Brooke's Bancroft prize winning "The Refiner's Fire," which discusses the origins of the Mormon cosmology. My late mother helpfully described Mormons as "heterodox." Their ideas clearly go against more than a millenium and a half of Christian orthodoxy, but they draw inspiration from a complex series of ideas that have percolated through Christianity. It would be heretical to say Jesus was not ressurrected, because that would deny essential claims about what it means to be a Christian. But Mormonism is merely "heterodox." If you are still confused you should read "The Refiner's Fire." (Brooke is to be preferred to Jan Shipps, a protestant scholar of Mormonism who manages to get in the their books by tactfully avoiding controversial questions. Mormon historian, like Richard Bushman, have to worry about excommunication and their own arguments should be viewed with caution).

Posted by partisan | December 5, 2007 8:02 PM

If Candidate A claims "Vote for me, I'm a Christian" and Citizen B says "No I will not, because I don't think you are a Christian," how is that bigotry? Now, if Candidate A says "Vote for me and I'll slash taxes and double, nay, triple Guantanamo" and Citizen B says "No I will not because I don't think you are a Christian," that strays into bigot territory.

It's a grey area to be sure, but I see evaulating that claim to be sure, but I see nothing bigoted about a member of group X evaluating the claims of someone who says "I too am a member of group X." The notion that no one can define a Christian/Jew/Hindu/Atheiest/Buddhist/Flying Spagetti Monsterite is just postmodernism eating its own face.

Posted by TheF79 | December 5, 2007 8:05 PM

If Candidate A claims "Vote for me, I'm a Christian" and Citizen B says "No I will not, because I don't think you are a Christian," how is that bigotry? Now, if Candidate A says "Vote for me and I'll slash taxes and double, nay, triple Guantanamo" and Citizen B says "No I will not because I don't think you are a Christian," that strays into bigot territory.

It's a grey area to be sure, but I see nothing bigoted about a member of group X evaluating the claims of someone who says "I too am a member of group X." The notion that no one can define a Christian/Jew/Hindu/Atheiest/Buddhist/Flying Spagetti Monsterite is just postmodernism eating its own face.

Posted by TheF79 | December 5, 2007 8:05 PM

I don't think that Mormonism is inherently more kooky than other religions. But there are certainly cases where I think that a strongly held religious belief could be a disqualifier.

If a candidate belonged to a sect that believes the world will end on a particular date in the near future, I'd consider that disqualifying. We need a president who will care about the long-term interests of the country, so if the candidate thinks that there is no long-term, forget it.

Likewise, if a candidate belongs to a religion that rejects the partition of the Land of Israel as an offense against God (like Pat Robertson does), that would be a disqualifier unless the candidate explicitly dissents. Peace in the Middle East will require sharing the land.

Posted by Joe Buck | December 5, 2007 8:06 PM

Obviously Mormons have some major doctrinal differences with, say, Catholics or Baptists, mostly related to beliefs about what happens after death. But the question of whether they are Christian or not always seemed silly to me. Mormons believe that they are Christian, and indeed are extremely insulted if you say they are not. Mormons believe in the New Testament, they believe Christ died on the cross and was resurrected, and they believe that Christ took upon him the sins of the world. They believe in the divinity of Christ. They pray to the Father "in the name of Jesus Christ." That seems to be a lot more fundamental to the spirit of Christianity than whether you believe that the holy trinity is three-in-one, or whether you believe as Mormons do that each member of the trinity is a separate being.

Posted by Christy | December 5, 2007 8:22 PM

Just to clarify, Jews for Jesus consider themselves an ethnic/cultural group who believe/practice a Christian life, generally.

There are a great, great many similar "Jews" who identify as Jews but who do not practice Judaism on anything approaching an observant basis, or who possess little real knowledge of Judaism. For example, I take it from Matt's posting schedule that he doesn't observe the sababth. ... how can you be a Jew and not observe the sabbath? If I'm right about Matt's lack of observance, is he not really a Jew? Should we read Matt's blog if he claims to be a Jew but doesn't lead a Jewish life?

I certainly wouldn't make anything approaching such a argument, but I think it's weird to put such an emphasis on the accuracy, in terms of overall consensus, of one's self-identification. It's pretty clear that these issues are contentious precisely because they are so hard to establish. Better to talk of Xtianities and Judaisms rather than to insist stubbornly on some sin qua non of each.

Posted by berger | December 5, 2007 8:55 PM

Kevin - up yours Hun

Posted by WB Yeats | December 5, 2007 9:14 PM

The extent to which a candidate believes in batshit crazy things is certainly relevant to his or her qualifications for office.

Posted by rea | December 5, 2007 9:16 PM

I think the notion that Mormons aren't Christians really is driven by bigotry or some form of xenophobia. Matt attempts to distance himself nicely from those uglies by straw polling Protestant and Catholic opinion, but that's about as exculpating as a real estate broker steering undesirables away from a neighborhood for the sake of its white homeowners.

Of course at an abstract level, theological disagreement with Mormons is not categorically bigoted. But I think that much of the disagreement is in reality tethered to bigotry. Its dangerous to assume good faith religious disagreement in a society with evident distaste for Mormons. Mormons historically suffered real persecution and today are ridiculed as impossibly alien, insidious, and weird. The content of the prejudices against Mormons in general includes their incurable otherness. They have that in common with Asian Americans. I cannot imagine that these prejudices have not also seeped into theology, any more than I can believe that white racism hasn't seeped into biology and other hard sciences.

The objections to Mormons take the form of visceral disgust, a generalized sense of superiority, and insistence on their otherness -- all the hallmarks of bigotry. I view claims that Romney's religion is a demerit in that light.

The comparison to "Jews for Jesus" conflates a bona fida religion whose adherents are basically decent with a cheap conservative marketing ploy. We can really do better.

Posted by StJoe | December 5, 2007 9:30 PM

Why Jews for Jesus "grates" is not complicated. Matthew has an identity. It's a central part of his individual mental universe. It's a cluster of symbols, attributes, assumptions, and so on. 'believes the Roman-era literary figure Jesus of Nazareth was God' is not in this semantic cluster. Matthew maps this semantic cluster to the word "Jewish."

The particular nexus of semantic cluster and word 'Jewish' is drawn by Matthew from other people, living and dead. By correlating Matthew's nexus of "Jewish" and his cluster of symbols, attributes and assumptions with those of other people, you come up with his social universe.

Jews for Jesus adds to Matthew's cluster, 'believes the Roman-era literary figure Jesus of Nazareth was God.' That's not part of Matthew's semantic cluster. That's not part of the semantic cluster of anyone in his social universe. JFJ attribute the word 'Jewish' to themselves, but relate it to a different attributes. Homo sapiens finds this behavior unsettling. It causes painful cognitive dissonance. It short-circuits the linguistic and social behavioral functions. The usual response is hostility.

It all reminds me of the Culture Fair at U.C. Santa Cruz in 1993, I think. The Arab Student Association and local Hillel chapter both insisted on serving felafel. That was sort of the converse problem.

Anyway, only fucking liberals worry if they're bigots. We're all bigots. Jesus.

Posted by Aaron | December 5, 2007 9:54 PM

The Catholic Church has also claimed that virtually every other form of Christian religious belief wasn't "really Christian" at some point or another throughout history.

Jews for Jesus is a thinly veiled organization intended to convert Jewish people to Christianity. As such it involves issues of a powerful, hegemonic religious identity trying to absorb a smaller, historically excluded one. The power relationships between mainstream American Christianity (Catholic or Protestant) and Mormonism are exactly the opposite.

I may be misunderstanding some element of your logic, but this seems like a silly post. Virtually every religious schism in history runs around yelling that the other sects and denominations aren't REAL followers of Christ, Muhammad, Moses, The Buddha, the Vedas, etc... Since when do we accept that Shi'a aren't real Muslims just because some Sunnis say so?

Posted by Seriously? | December 5, 2007 9:55 PM

Jews for Jesus adds to Matthew's cluster, 'believes the Roman-era literary figure Jesus of Nazareth was God.' That's not part of Matthew's semantic cluster. That's not part of the semantic cluster of anyone in his social universe. JFJ attribute the word 'Jewish' to themselves, but relate it to a different attributes

Attributes that, many, many times in the past have been associated with going around taking shit from and/or murdering people who identify with the group of attributes that Matt does...

Posted by Seriously? | December 5, 2007 9:59 PM

FYI, Jews for Jesus aren't "now calling themselves Messianic Jews." Messianic Jews, some of whom I chance to have in my extended family, practice all of the tenets of Judaism--I attended a bat mitzvah a couple of months ago--but also believe that the Messiah showed up and was Jesus. As you can imagine, this puts them on the outs with pretty much everyone. Jews for Jesus, as established above, are essentially creepy Baptists attempting to convert other Jews.

As for Romney and his Mormonism, I find there are plenty of reasons to oppose his candidacy without getting into his religious beliefs. As a progressive Episcopalian, I find religious extremism and bigotry simply distasteful.

Posted by John | December 5, 2007 10:25 PM

I wonder how many of you naive and/or stupid people who think that a healthy distrust of the Mormon religion equates with bigotry have ever lived in small town Utah and/or heard stories from friends and acquaintances who were born into the church but who left of their own accord, and then suffered the consequences.

Do I think Mormons should be free to practice their faith? Sure. Would I ever vote for a Mormon for president? No way. Do I think they are Christians? Not really. Read the Book of Mormon, or at least familiarize yourselves with what it claims. Jesus came to North America, as did a couple tribes of Israel? A person can be baptized via a surrogate long after death? Whatever.

And whereas one can argue that the Mormon religion is no less "kooky" than any other, I cannot think of another widely accepted religion that can have the facts of its sacred scriptures so readily disproved. Animal species that didn't arrive until well after Europeans first showed up are reported in pre-Columbian North America. Um ... sure.

I've known people who couldn't attend weddings of their own family members because the weddings were held in temples and the people I knew weren't members in good standing and didn't have their temple recommend cards. So much for the warm, fuzzy, family-friendly persona that the church tries to project.

In my humble estimation, the Mormon church is nothing more than a fairly large cult/business that is doing whatever it can to be accepted by the mainstream of Christianity. It wants to buy respectability and raise its visibility, hence its need for a standard bearer who is well known outside the Zion curtain. That's the reason Romney ran for governor of an eastern state and, I'd wager, served only one term. He got his feet wet in politics and was ready to run for the White House.

Mormons can be great people; Mormons can be arseholes. The same can be said for any religious or demographic group. However, as I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't vote for any Mormon for president because I don't think he would have been able to rise to the level of candidacy without getting the secret backroom blessing somewhere in the bowels of Temple Square in SLC. The tendency by some is to compare Romney and Mormonism to JFK and Catholicism. Instead, the natural analogy should be to Tom Cruise and Scientology, or a Moonie candidate and the Unification Church.

Posted by Castanea | December 5, 2007 10:27 PM

Bloix, it's unfair to compare Mormonism to Scientology. Mormonism may be a stupid religion, (But that's redundant, isn't it...) but it is at least a real religion. Scientology is a criminal conspiracy pretending to be a religion. An extortion and blackmail ring with a tax deduction.

I can't hold Romney's Mormonism against him, all it tells us about him is that his parents were Mormons, and little more. Now, if he'd converted to Mormonism, we'd know he was nuts...

Posted by Brett Bellmore | December 5, 2007 10:50 PM

In grad school, I had a non-Mormon rommate who grew up in SLC. Man, he really hated Mormons.

Posted by blah | December 5, 2007 10:58 PM

An utter intolerance of a religion, or of a people because of their beliefs, is bigotry by definition.

And last I heard there should be no religious litmus test for public office. Refusing to vote for someone because of their religion is a religious litmus test -- same as refusing to vote for them if they're not the "right" religion.

Posted by Jason | December 5, 2007 11:21 PM

By the way, the Left doesn't help itself by cultivating a prejudice against particular religions, or against all religions. The goal of the Left ought to be persuading others that our way is the best way to go; moreover, the Leftist worldview is all about inclusiveness, tolerance, cooperation, diversity, etc. You can't square that with bigotry toward religion.

And FYI, Mormonism has historical ties to progressivism, communitarianism, etc.; its self-alignment with political conservatism and the Religious Right is a recent phenomenon (post-WWII). In many respects, I am a Leftist because I am a Mormon.

Don't act like the intolerant bigots on the Right. Show a little respect for people who might think differently from you.

Posted by Jason | December 5, 2007 11:36 PM

Mormons don't accept the Nicene Creed, which pretty much disqualifies them from being orthodox Christians.

However I would accept that Mormonism is a heterodox Christianity, given a pretty broad definition of Christianity. I suppose anyone who worships Jesus in some way is a Christian of a sort.

Posted by grytpype | December 5, 2007 11:41 PM

I think the notion that Mormons aren't Christians really is driven by bigotry or some form of xenophobia.

No, it is driven by the fact that most people who consider themselves Christian believe completely different things from Mormons. Our basic understanding of God is different, so even if they believe in "Jesus," the Jesus they believe in is very different from the one that most other people who call themselves Christians believe in.

AS for Messianic Jews (I won't get into "Jews for Jesus," as I know next to nothing about the organization), I think one point has to be made here:

If Jesus really was the Messiah, and if He really was God the Son (which I do understand are distinct claims), then obviously both of those things must be consistent with the Jewish scriptures; unlike Mormons about hteir book or Muslims about the Qu'Ran, most Christians do not believe that the Old Testament was corrupted and therefore the New Testament was needed to correct it; we believe that the New Testament simply complements and consummates the Old Testament.

Put another way, if Christianity is true, then there is nothing un-Jewish about being Christian. So it makes perfect sense for Messianic Jews to think of themselves as Jewish, and for conventional Jews to think of them as "non-Jewish." But understand that to ask Messianic Jews to stop calling themselves "Jewish" is ridiculous, because (a) to do so would violate their understanding of what Judaism means, and (b) is based on the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah or God, which they do not share.

Similarly, I am not offended that Mormons consider themselves to be Christian, because if their beliefs were correct (full disclosure - I believe they are not) then they would not only be Christians, but the most theologically correct Christians.

I may have problems with Romney's beliefs, and I may not consider him a Christian, but I don't have a problem with him consdiering himnself to be a Christian per se, that is, I see nothing disingenuous about it.

Posted by Glaivester | December 5, 2007 11:43 PM

I've always thought it curious that the Nicene Creed is the benchmark for defining "Christianity." The Nicene Creed is extra-biblical -- a committee decision made about theology largely for political reasons. There is almost no, and certainly no irrefutable, support for the trinitarian conception of God in the bible.

The only rational definition of "Christian," so far as I can tell, is "one who believes in the divinity of Jesus." The definition that relies on the Nicene Creed is more historical (and perhaps political) than rational.

By the rational definition, Mormons are Christians.

Anyone who has questions about Mormonism can feel free to ask me. I can't speak for the Church, but I can give you my personal view.
http://onemormonsperspective.blogspot.com/

Posted by Jason | December 5, 2007 11:50 PM

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al. were theological unitarians who explicitly rejected the Nicene Creed. I'm guessing the folks who get twitchy about a Mormon president aren't going to call the Founding Fathers non-Christians. Ergo, the Creed probably doesn't have much to do with their definition of Christianity, or their rejection of Mormonism (or if it does, they're bein kinda stupid).

Posted by Aaron | December 6, 2007 12:15 AM

Jason, you're a moron. People are refusing considering voting for a Mormon president - and I generally am happy with knowing that most national politicians are full of shit when it comes to their religion - because it is a judgement issue.

So tell me, which one of these do you believe:

native americans are all descended from jews who emigrated to continent in 60BC. Before that, the place was unpopulated.

Some of the jews turned wicked and god cursed them with dark skin. They wiped out the good white jews that were left.

Bigfoot is real, he is Cain, wondering the earth cursed by god

Blacks are cursed with dark skin because they are descended from cain

god lives on a planet which circles a star called kolob.

A vast civilization of millions once flourished in North America. They had steel swords, writing, money, and cultivated grapes and barley and used elephants and horses. They all wiped themselves out before columbus arrived.

Once you go through the temple rituals, you get to wear magic underwear that protects you from evil. You must wear it at all times.

Satan has special power over bodies of water and their missionaries are not allowed to go swimming.

Yes, you get your own planet when you go to heaven, and yes, the males get a harem more or less. It's well-established doctrine that when you get to heaven, the men will be given extra wives.

Posted by JFD | December 6, 2007 12:32 AM

Do you really want anybody believing the above controlling nuclear weapons, the prospect of peace on earth, and the development of our species? That is why it is perfectly reasonable to bat away crazies when they attempt to spring one of their own into the nations highest office.

Posted by JFD | December 6, 2007 12:35 AM

JFD, I'm not clear on how the President of the U.S. controls "the development of our species" (thank god). But I do agree that it's not bigotry to consider somebody's beliefs to be ridiculous, and to conclude on that basis that they are not qualified to be President. Nobody gets to have beliefs that are immune from criticism.

Also, in response to Aaron: I'm not clear on the details, but I'm pretty sure some of the founding fathers were deists, and hence, non-Christians -- not because of the Nicene Creed, but because they didn't think Jesus was God.

Posted by Tom | December 6, 2007 1:26 AM

Not liking a religion is "bigotry"? How about taste? This does not mean you have license to hate religionists, unless they're being really stupid.

Hatred of blacks? Stupid. It's a genetic inheritance. Sex? Hormonal, brain chemistry, plumbing. Born that way. Old age? Show me somebody who doesn't get old.

But you really do choose your religion, and some of them are truly stupid and brutish. I'll dislike whatever religion I want to, like the Ultramontane Quebec Catholicism of my youth. What was that like? Think Cinema Paradiso. Repression and diddling priests.

Posted by Jim H | December 6, 2007 2:27 AM

My late mother helpfully described Mormons as "heterodox." Their ideas clearly go against more than a millenium and a half of Christian orthodoxy, but they draw inspiration from a complex series of ideas that have percolated through Christianity.

Obviously, a point to be made here is that the fundie GOP base (particularly the S. Baptist variety) is also pretty damn heterodox. It's fascinating to see the 'rapturists for Israel' among fundies, given the fact that there are actually Christians in the Holy Land who have been there for quite a while, and just happen to be Palestinians.

So it's a case of 'how heterodox is your heterodox', in which the S. Baptists protest way too much. And that presents Romney with his problem: that is, you're basically dealling with two nineteenth century denominations, one of which has a slight advantage in terms of its appeal to orthodoxy, but neither of which has the barest resemblance to, say, the Christianity that used to be tolerated in Iraq under S. Hussein, and is now dying out.

So, Southern Baptists have icky feelings about Mormonism not because of theological difference, but because of commonalities, not least the recognition that LDS and S.B. were both segregationist denominations.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 6, 2007 3:09 AM

JFD - All you are doing is coming full circle back to the intolerant era that Jack Kennedy warned about - conflating what a person would do as President, or Commanding General (Eisenhower - River Mennonite then Jehovah's Witness) with their "absurd religious beliefs".

I think Catholics have a lot of stupid ideas like transubstantiation, as bad as the Fundies who believe in a literally talking snake. Jews are persecuted by some because they rejected the true God's OT words in favor of the Torah, and murdered his Son. Islam is a heresy with truly bizarre concepts on will and afterlife and a streak of relious violence unmatched in contemporary believers in other religions. Does that mean all Muslims are stupid and display bad judgement by being Believers?
Bobby Jindal's parents believe in multiple gods, while he is a Catholic. What if he had stayed Hindu, as he likely would have if raised into adulthood in India, then got into US politics? Would he be as unacceptable to you purely on religion - as a Catholic, Jewish, Muslim candidate might be?
And many religious people believe only "lost" people fail to have any religion.

Tom joins in and says "it's not bigotry" for people with "ridiculous" personal religious beliefs to be blacklisted from office. Yes, it is bigotry, Tom.

And it is also unconstitutional if an elected or appointed official imposes a religious litmus
test on hires or the "ridiculous" people coming before them, as they discharge duties and favors of office.

Being a senior executive, like President, Minister of a major portfolio like Health Care, Foreign Affairs, a COO, a CEO - or a man in the military in command of other's lives - is secular and not religious in nature except in theocracies like Iran. As long as the person's values do not block them from fulfilling the expectations of those that put them in power, their values do not conflict with the job.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 6, 2007 3:19 AM

Speaking as a non-Jew, I even find Jews for Jesus (as an organization, never having met a member in person) to be annoying. For instance, they ran a print ad with a Holocaust survivor talking about being a Jew for Jesus and thus using the Holocaust as some kind of litmus test for Jewish-ness. That is a bit insulting: "you can't criticize my weird views, I'm a Holocaust survivor. In fact, it makes me even more Jewish than you."

Posted by Reality Man | December 6, 2007 3:26 AM

Chris Ford:

This has nothing to do with values and everything to do with judgement. For if you believe such an easily laughable fraud, why would I think you have the judgement to use your reason to solve secular problems? For in your personal "values" you believe that Blacks are descendents of Cain, and I am a black man, exactly why the fuck would I want you to be in public office?

Posted by JFD | December 6, 2007 3:33 AM

I still find it inconsistent that a) most Americans consider themselves religious, b) most religions are predicated on the fact that they offer fundamental truths about the universe and c) one is not allowed to get into discussion about religion in a number of key areas.

One area which seems to be becoming strangely taboo, as one of the above posters called it, is discussing someone's fundamental beliefs about the nature of the universe in the context of their fitness for office. Why on Earth are you allowed to consider a candidate to be disquaified by some youthful misdemeanour, but you're a bigot if you don't vote for someone because you think that the book that they claim to run their life by is nonsense? In the case that Matt cites, he disagrees with the Jews' for Jesus believing that Jews should stop being Jews (as Matt defines that). Seems like a good ground for serious disagreement and therefore a reason to vote for someone else.

The other weird one is this dislike of conversion, whether by atheists, Mormons, Scientologists or whoever. If a person believes that they understand something fundamental and unique about how the world works, why on Earth are they not allowed to try and persuade others of that truth? (Especially as many of those believers genuinely think that you will suffer for eternity if you don't believe). Why am I allowed to sell you semi-fraudulent credit cards as brashly as I like, but am I not allowed to respectfully try and persuade someone that I know some critical stuff about some very fundamental things? I, for one, disagree violently with the doctrines of both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but I appreciate that they genuinely blieve that they are trying to help me when they come knocking on my door. Better that than the smug Evangelicals smirking about how all those others out there are going to burn but don't hit the road to do something about it.

Posted by JohnTh | December 6, 2007 4:41 AM

JFD,
Most of those "beliefs" that you list are either distorted versions of what Mormons actually believe, or they are not Mormon beliefs at all.

When I have more time (not today), I will address each of your listed "beliefs" here:
http://onemormonsperspective.blogspot.com/

For anyone interested.

Thanks for calling me a moron, by the way. It's nice to have your bigotry underscored for all to see.

Posted by Jason | December 6, 2007 7:14 AM

If a person professes to believe something that seems really stupid to me, why shouldn't I take that into account in assessing whether they're qualified to be President?

Chris Ford, your bare say-so does not persuade me that I am being a bigot about this. You point to the beliefs of various religionists that some might find ridiculous, and suggest that these have nothing to do with a person's ability to do the job of President. I disagree. People's religious beliefs guide them in making difficult ethical choices, of the kind that any President has to make many times. (Do I start a war? Do I veto this compromise bill that has some good stuff along with some stuff that I hate? etc.)

For what it's worth, I'm religious but not fundamentalist -- so I'm not one of those strident atheists you often find in conversations like this. I think my beliefs are saner than those of literalist believers in any religion -- but if you find my beliefs ridiculous, I think you should go ahead and vote against me if I ever run for office, because my beliefs actually are evidence of my intelligence, judgment, or lack thereof.

Posted by Tom | December 6, 2007 7:55 AM

No, it is driven by the fact that most people who consider themselves Christian believe completely different things from Mormons.

Except for the people who are Mormons who consider themselves Christians.

Posted by Jinchi | December 6, 2007 9:04 AM

I am a Christian, and the Mormons are welcome to call themselves Christians, the Jews for Jesus free to call themselves Jews.

But are some people free in turn to believe that they're not Christians from our point of view? Yes, the Catholics and others consider any Baptism not made in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be invalid. Jews, likewise, are free to consider a conversion of Christianity as a disqualifier for that status.

And everybody else is free in turn to agree or disagree with that assessment, and act accordingly.

But lets consider the politics of this: as Democrats this is an issue we're not supposed to care about. When we start beating up on religion, or on a person for their religion, when we let that sway us, it betrays our traditional allegiance to the bill of rights.

I may not agree with the theology of a Mormon, nor you agree with the theology of a Jew for Jesus, but should we really care about that when talking about government, or should we instead back a notion that those who govern us all must govern for us all, not simply to push the agenda of their own religious sensibility.

I agree with not having a person's religious views be imposed by government officials on others. But if a person has a thing concerning prayer or their religion as a personal item, I don't object to that.

The separation of Church and State means that our govenrment is not an arm of the church and our church is not an arm of the government. The governing authority of this country is not founded on divine right, but the rule of law. That should be where it begins and end, and we should strive to keep that pure.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty | December 6, 2007 9:19 AM

as Democrats this is an issue we're not supposed to care about.

As a Democrat and a thinking person, I care about elected officials having competence and good judgement. I think it's right to look at a person's beliefs about religion, along with their beliefs about everything else (and their record, etc, etc), to decide whether he or she is likely to be a competent, smart, ethical President.

As a matter of my own good judgment, I probably wouldn't apply an anti-Mormon litmus test, because I'm pretty sure someone can be Mormon and still be competent, smart, and ethical (though the apparent wackiness of some Mormon beliefs is some indication of the intelligence of the believer). But I probably would apply an anti-Scientologist litmus test, on the grounds that that religion is so ridiculous that no one who believes it can be trusted with the Presidency. I think others likewise have the right to make their own assessments of Mormonism, Scientology, and other religions, and decide what each of them indicates about their adherents' intelligence and judgment -- and where, if anywhere, to draw a line and refuse to consider voting for somebody.

Why shouldn't religions be subject to the same marketplace of ideas that everything else is?

When we start beating up on religion, or on a person for their religion, when we let that sway us, it betrays our traditional allegiance to the bill of rights.

Assuming that we're talking only about figurative beating-up, and that the person's religion has some relevance to the job for which they're being considered, then I don't see how it does betray any such allegiance. (And all religions have some relevance to the job of President, because that's a job with a huge range of responsibilities.)

The Bill of Rights protects Mitt Romney's right to practice and express his religion, and prevents the government from establishing a religion. I don't see where it prevents anyone else from thinking he's an idiot because of his beliefs, or voting accordingly.

Posted by Tom | December 6, 2007 9:52 AM

"Why on Earth are you allowed to consider a candidate to be disquaified by some youthful misdemeanour, but you're a bigot if you don't vote for someone because you think that the book that they claim to run their life by is nonsense?"

Why not avoid both? When it comes down to it, at some point policies are what drive politics and affect peoples lives. To a non-believer in anything like me that finds all religious beliefs about the supernatural silly, we should fight for our rights, but it's a pipe dream to believe that we're going to really get many elections along the lives of Sam Harris vs. Ted Haggard anytime soon. I would probably trust George Romney's judgment more than Dubya's. If the election was Harry Reid vs. Giuliani or any of the other major Republicans, Reid would, despite being a Mormon, be the better choice based on his policies. With this said, Romney has made his own bed by trying to run as Utah's answer to evangelicalism that just happened to somehow be governor of Massachusetts. He probably had a better chance running as the establishment's CEO candidate and getting big business to muscle him through. I thought he had a real chance before, but I'm guessing now he doomed himself in favor of either Giuliani or Huckabee.

Posted by Reality Man | December 6, 2007 9:54 AM

Nicely put, Stephen. As others have said, where Romney gets into trouble is by wanting those evangelical votes so badly in the first place, IMO.

Animal species that didn't arrive until well after Europeans first showed up are reported in pre-Columbian North America. Um ... sure.

Also, God created the earth in seven days (see: Torah/Old Testament), objective reality is an illusion (Hinduism), when you take communion you're eating the flesh of Christ (Catholicism), blood transfusions are tools of the Devil (Christian Scientists and IIRC at least one other religion), etc., etc. If we want to talk about how religion is batshit we could be here all day. Show of hands: how many people think Lot's wife turned into a literal pillar of salt?

Romney believes some crazy shit. So, IMO, does pretty much every devoutly religious person in this country. Is the fact that his crazy shit is less familiar to us that significant?

Posted by Persia | December 6, 2007 9:56 AM

Contra Glaveister, it seems to me that believing that God has a son in any literal sense is more inconsistent with central tenets of Judiasm than rejecting the Nicean creed is with Christianity. After all, the one god thing is the first commandment. (Admittedly this rule is not applied as harshly in the other direction. One jewish joke has a father explaining to his son who has just heard about the trinity, "There is only one God, and we don't believe in him.")

It is not actually true that one can guarantee that ones belief system is consistent with an earlier belief system by simply declaring it so. I am not sure that a religious group should actually be happier to hear that its views are incomplete than that they are corrupted. Although the latter term seems harsher, in practical terms it seems to amount to pretty much the same thing.

On a separate point, it is true that "Jews for Jesus" are now calling themselves Messianic jews. That is true even though there are other people calling themselves messianic jews who wish that the "Jews for Jesus" would stop doing so.

Posted by Lon | December 6, 2007 10:35 AM

I could see myself voting for Harry Reid, if I lived in Nevada. Reid is a Mormon and I am not a fan of the religion, but as long as I agreed with his stands on the issues, I would vote for him.

However, I could never vote for Romney, and not because he's Mormon. It's his political views and opportunism that turn me off.

Posted by Lisa | December 6, 2007 11:21 AM

Do you really want [Mormons] controlling nuclear weapons, the prospect of peace on earth, and the development of our species? That is why it is perfectly reasonable to bat away crazies when they attempt to spring one of their own into the nations highest office.

Those who object to Mormons in public office should please explain why they think that person's religious beliefs will negatively affect his or her performance. One of my high school teachers was our state-champion swim coach. He was a Mormon bishop. He was also one of the most honorable, generous men I have ever met, and he was widely admired among me and my mostly atheist friends. He was never anything but adept at navigating the boundaries between religious life and public citizenship.

First off, if Mormons really think bodies of water are evil, what was he doing putting us in mortal danger every morning and afternoon in that swimming pool. Nonsense.

Second, I fail to understand why such a man's religious beliefs should be taken to determine anything about his fitness for public office or community leadership. Yes, he was born into a religion, raised in a family and community that believes in that religion, and his social life has been defined in large part by religious activity. But he's also an American, extremely well-versed in the norms of public life, and just as socialized into acceptable parameters of public policy as we are. Calling him a "crazy" is undiluted bigotry. It reveals that your interactions with Mormon individuals have been either nonexistent or entirely shallow.

Sure, politicians will run on their religion in order to demonstrate their "values", but most of us in this conversation recognize these invocations as nonsense -- tell us how you'll govern. I agree with Matt that Mitt Romney made a mistake by running on his religion, #1 because its irrelevant how to how he might govern, or at best a highly ambiguous factor and #2 because his religion, despite being aligned in fact with the modern conservative right, is a black sheep among mainstream Christians.

I understand how, a priori, you might think someone who believes in any form of divinity has thereby demonstrated his unfitness for office. But the cure for this form of ignorance is reality: have religious adherents in fact shown themselves capable of satisfactory public service?

Posted by StJoe | December 6, 2007 12:22 PM

Most of us are born into a religion and we participate in it as adults in a lukewarm fashion. Terms like "Jew", "Christian", or "Muslim" are so vague as to tell you virtually nothing about what a person believes. To say "I would never vote for an X" is stupid, and probably a leading indicator of bigotry.

But when someone talks about his "faith," he is talking about his core beliefs. And when politicians talk about how their faith motivates them and drives their actions, then it's rational for voters to look to the specifics of the faith for clues. It's downright silly to claim that it's rational to discriminate for or against candidates who say "I'm very conservative" or "I'm a committed liberal" but it's bigoted to reject candidates who say "I'm a born-again Christian" or "My Mormon faith guides my politics" or "Dianetics has all the answers."

If you discriminate against someone for who they are, that's bigotry. If you decide not to vote for someone who strongly believes in something that you find disturbing, that's common sense.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 6, 2007 12:26 PM

Who's a Jew depends upon who's asking. Wittgenstein was nominally a Catholic, but Hitler would have killed him. (After taking his family's money first, of course.)

In the (old) days when religion permeated political matters, a figure like John Calvin or the Pope had power. Not definitional power, but the more impressive power of life and death. Fortunately, as a species, we've grown beyond such things.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 6, 2007 7:21 PM

"And FYI, Mormonism has historical ties to progressivism, communitarianism, etc.; its self-alignment with political conservatism and the Religious Right is a recent phenomenon (post-WWII)."--Jason

Hey dude, ever hear of Reed Smoot (1862-1941)? He was one of your Twelve Apostles, but is better known for the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and best known for these immortal words by Ogden Nash, his very first piece published in The New Yorker on January 11, l930:

Senator Smoot (Republican, Ut.)
Is planning a ban on smut.
Oh rooti-ti-toot for Smoot of Ut.
And his reverend occiput.
Smite, Smoot, smite for Ut.,
Grit your molars and do your dut.,
Gird up your l--ns,
Smit h-p and th-gh,
We'll all be Kansas
By and by.

Smite, Smoot, for the Watch and Ward,
For Hiram Johnson and Henry Ford,
For Bishop Cannon and John D., Junior,
For ex-Gov.Pinchot of Pennsylvania,
For John S. Sumner and Elder Hays
And possibly Edward L. Bernays,
For Orville Poland and Ella Boole,
For Mother Machree and the Shelton pool,
When smut's to be smitten
Smoot will smite
For G-d, for country,
And Fahrenheit.

Senator Smoot is an institute
Not to be bribed with pelf:
He guards our homes from erotic tomes
By reading them all himself.
Smite, Smoot, smite for Ut.,
They're smuggling smut from Balt. to Butte!
Strongest and sternest
Of your s-x
Scatter the scoundrels
From Can. to Mex!

Smite, Smoot, for Smedley Butler,
For any good man by the name of Cutler,
Smite for the W.T.C.U.,
For Rockne's team, and for Leader's crew,
For Florence Coolidge and Admiral Byrd,
For Billy Sunday and John D., Third,
For Grantland Rice and for Albie Booth,
For the Woman's Auxiliary of Duluth,
Smite, Smoot,
Be rugged and rough,
Smut if smitten
Is front-page stuff.

Posted by Henderstock | December 6, 2007 9:27 PM

The problem here is that we as a culture tend to put religion in a little box in our heads, and try not to think about it too hard.

Romney professes to be Mormon. Mormonism, by the book, teaches a lot of really stupid stuff. Its got a history that transparently proclaims that it was invented by a fraudster. So an argument could be made that Romney is proclaiming, quite loudly, that he believes a host of dumb things, and that we therefore shouldn't vote for him.

Except... does he really BELIEVE believe those things? Probably not.

Our culture is filled with people who go to churches that proclaim that the world will end within a rather short period of time. And yet they still plan for retirement, they still put their kids into college. Its filled with people who go to churches that proclaim crazy things about science, and yet these church attendees happily live their lives taking advantage of those scientific discoveries, without ever bothering to consider that they might have trouble reconciling the two.

If religion were just some set of truth claims, we'd evaluate it the way I started my post. We'd look at the claims. If they were dumb, we'd think the person who believed them was dumb, and we'd not vote for them. That wouldn't be bigotry anymore than voting against a candidate for believing in astrology would be bigotry. Stupid is stupid, and we'd vote against it.

But religion isn't a regular set of truth claims. Its a set of truth claims that people claim to believe, pick and choose which parts to actually believe, disregard some, and simultaneously proclaim belief in others while acting in ways inconsistent with true belief. On top of that its heavily wrapped up with personal and group identity.

In a way, it seems almost unfair to take Romney to task for Mormonism being stupid. He says he believes the stupid things, sure, but that's RELIGIOUS talk, its not REAL.

Posted by Patrick | December 7, 2007 1:17 PM