IS RELIGION "FAIR GAME" IN AMERICAN POLITICS?

Reactions from the Romney-ites to posts noting Mitt Romney’s unconventional religion have been swift and brutal.

Lily wrote: "You sound more like a Nazi than an American. No, religion should not be part and parcel of politics, candidates' qualifications, or a subject to be attacked. Best advice: Cool your jets."

A Real Huckabee Supporter wrote : "If you're appealing to anti-LDS sentiment, I don't think Huckabee wants those votes. If you're representing Huckabee supporters as bigots in order to help Romney -- it won't work."

But are these charges factually accurate? Is Speedzzter a "bigot" or a "Nazi"?

WHAT IS BIGOTRY AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO FAITH?

"Bigot, n. [F., Bigot, hypocrite (in OF. A name once given to the Normans in France.).] One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief or opinion."

Certainly, an advocate can be so irrationally wedded to an opinion to the point of being unable to consider any evidence or reasoning to the contrary. When such opinions are held without any reasonable, objective justification, then a proper charge of bigotry will often lie.

But to immediately reach for the sword of "bigotry" at the first hint of disagreement over matters of thought purposefully chills the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth. It inhibits the search for common ground by poisoning future discourse.

Of course, matters of faith have objective and subjective components. And as the skeptics accurately point out, no matter how historical, scholarly and reasoned one's faith in supernatural systems becomes, faith inherently involves at some level . . . well . . . FAITH -- a BELIEF in something. Obviously, to suggest that all "belief" is bigotry grossly devalues both concepts without justification.

Thus, the true tests of bigotry are:

(1) whether the basis, reasonability and intellectual viability of the belief is outweighed by generally-accepted facts or universally-held values;

(2) whether the conduct flowing from the belief lacks objective value for others or for one's own self-regulation;

(3) whether the conduct flowing from the belief degrades social composition;

(4) whether the the conduct flowing from the belief places others in a false light or at a disadvantage unreasonably related to the task, privileges or immunities at hand.

Certainly none of my comments in this blog stray across these boundary lines.

IS RELIGION "FAIR GAME" IN POLITICS?

Throughout this primary season, the Romney-ites have been quick to hammer Governor Huckabee and his followers based on fragments of hearsay and perceptions of faith-based bias.

Yet in virtually the next breath they usually claim that anyone who scrutinizes the LDS faith objectively (based on the written statements of their own alleged prophets) is a "hatemongering bigot."

Of course, Willard Mitt Romney was a proselytizing missionary in his younger days. Thus, it’s almost certain that his defenders would NOT argue that having private doctrinal discussions makes one a "religious bigot" (otherwise, the legions of bike-riding LDS missionaries would fit within that definition).

Moreover, Romney "opened the door" to faith questions when he laid claim to "faith" in Jesus Christ. If he didn't want to discuss religion whatsoever, he should have never mentioned it.

More importantly, Romney and the Romney-ites have grossly distorted the "no religious test" provision of the Constitution.

The "no religious test" provision of Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly does not prohibit individual voters evaluating a candidate's intellect, personal moral values and even religious beliefs in the private calculus on whom to vote for. Nor does it prevent any candidate from responding in candor and honesty as to questions on matters of faith. It simply prohibits the government from establishing a formal "religious test.

Given, however, the poor state of civics education in this country and the constant anti-debate paeans to a lazy, empty-headed, politically-correct "tolerance," Romney's message undoubtedly resonates with many in the electorate.

To the extent that a candidate's religion and personal piety (e.g. "applied religion") provide windows into the intellect, public and personal values, motivations, philosophy, opinions and beliefs of a candidate, they are clearly relevant in private decisions on whom to vote for.

Moreover, although the law does have a didactic ("teaching") function --which is a timeless, fundamental principle wholly lost on generations of social libertarians-- the secularists and "toleration fascists" derive the wrong lessons from the Constitution.

Freedom of conscience is firmly enshrined in the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE of the First Amendment. Read properly in its historic context, this fundamental liberty contemplates a robust, public discussion and consideration of "faith-based" questions, even in political campaigns. That such discussions apparently offend some self-appointed elites and "tolerance cops" is of no matter.

The view of some is that religion can have a token presence in the public square so long as it is marginalized to the background. While slightly better than the politicially-correct "fascism" of those who demand total privatization of religious expression and strict separation under some squishy, intellectually lazy concept of "tolerance," it forces persons of genuine, sincerely-held faith to enter the public discourse as second-class citizens--disarmed of much that they hold materially critical in life. The great moral policy movements of American history would have been hamstrung in such a hostile environment.

Candidates must always remain free to be themselves in their quest to persuade the electorate.

And voters must always retain the liberty to exercise the civic responsibility of selecting candidates on criteria consistent with their personal values. Consistent adherence to these fundamental principles of liberty inherently implicate the consideration of religious values, opinions and beliefs. Far from the rigid, formal, sectarian, government-directed "religious test" banned in the Constitution, this free market of ideas is at the heart of what the Constitution protects.

Thus, it is a manifest disservice to our civil discourse and our individual liberty to suggest that all legitimate, factual discussions of theology, even in the context of a political campaign, are "bigotry."

The secularists and the "toleration fascists" are right insofar as they point out that building an electoral coalition requires attracting voters from many different (and conflicting) faiths (including a few voters who reject all faiths). Thus, the successful candidate will focus on common ground RELEVANT TO WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES (i.e. specific policies based on moral values). Both Romney and Huckabee are better served by comparing and contrasting what each of them would do as president, rather than battling over their respective theological motivations. And to that end, Governor Huckabee has gone out of his way to avoid the odd specifics of the Mormon cult.

The whining protests of Romney and the Romney-ites on this issue demonstrate both panic and intellectual softness. Neither are attractive in a president.

Romney is no Reagan.

Romney's over-blown "religion" speech last month was calculated to evade and mislead. Romney's non-answers and buzz-word double-speak communicate more loudly than his carefully-crafted, focus-grouped, photo-op "religion" speech ever could.

Romney is seeking to have it both ways.

He wants to talk just enough "Jesus talk" to lure some of the voters who sincerely believe that what's in a candidate's "heart" profoundly affects governance, but he doesn't want to answer any of the questions that logically flow from this same topic. He also wants to pander to his fellow LDS cohorts by claiming to be "proud" of his particular religion, yet he shrinks from any meaningful discussion of its essential tenets.

This lack of candor reveals much about why Romney is ill-suited for the presidency.