Can Christians Vote Mormon?
Mitt Romney is the currently the GOP candidate
for President of the United States. It is quite plausible that he could be President. Mitt
Romney is also a Mormon. Why is Romney’s Mormonism something to take note of?
Well, I personally don’t believe that it is something that, as Christians, we should be too concerned about. However, some Christians do take that into heavy consideration. It ought not be that way, yet there it is. It follows that I must comment and put my two cents in on this issue.
I’ve heard of some concerns about Romney’s Mormonism, but never gave it much thought. If a candidate has the same philosophy as me and stands on the same sides of important issues as I do, then I consider this person to be a favorable candidate. Because this is more or less my thought process for choosing a candidate, religion is, for the most part, irrelevant, and I suspected that this would be the same method employed by my fellow American voters. So the idea that a candidates religion should be an issue is foreign to me. However, since this is my first election as a Christian, and I am now more aware of Christian thought in America, I now realize that view may be a bit naive. However, I am still convinced that Romney’s Mormonism is not a deciding factor.
In a recent article written by Warren Cole Smith, it is argued that Romney, and any other Mormon for that matter, is unfit to serve as President of the United States. Smith received a lot of heat for the article, being criticized as bigoted and setting up an unconstitutional religious test for office. His central argument can be presented in the following syllogism:
1. If one’s beliefs are false, then the behavior will eventually be warped
2. Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs are false
3. Therefore, Romney’s behavior will be warped
This argument comes off to me as unsound. We can see this if we apply a modus tollens. Is Smith willing to say that if one’s behavior is not warped, whatever he means by warped, then that means his belief is therefore true? That’s what he is saying logically, but I can’t imagine anyone saying that this is true. I have non-believing friends and family members who do good things, who’s behavior is not, at times, warped. Is their unbelief therefore true? Obviously not.
All people can do good things because we are made in God’s image. Because Christianity is true, the world works and operates as described by the Christian worldview. It would be impossible to live any other way. One might give lip service to a contrary worldview, but they must, at some point, borrow from Christianity, at the cost of consistency. This would be a kind of “upper story leap” that Francis Schaeffer described.
Also, there may be some ambiguity in the word “belief”. What exactly does Smith mean by belief? Does he mean a general worldview, or particular beliefs about issues, such as marriage and abortion? As Francis Beckwith points out, the first premise “depends on the plausibility of the belief in question and not on the overall plausibility of the worldview from which it heralds.” It may be so, and it is quite observable, that false worldviews may have some true beliefs, and we must asses the individual issues on it’s own merit, and to attack the worldview hints at a genetic fallacy.
Smith has a second argument, and one that I think resonates with the concerned Christian on Romney’s Mormonism. He argues:
1. A candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve
2. Romney has the effect of promoting a false and dangerous religion
3. Therefore, Romney is unfit to serve
Unlike the first argument, I think both premises are dubious. The second premise is an interesting sociological claim, which Smith presents no evidence for. I would like to see a correspondence between the presidents religion and growth of their religion thereafter (but upon some reflection, this might be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, so how this study would be conducted I have no idea). To my knowledge, there has been no such study. So it’s unclear if Romney’s presidency will actually have this effect on his religion.
The first premise is what has come under some heavy fire. Some believe that this sets up a religious test. Concerning this, Smith replies, “…what I affirm, is that Mitt Romney or anyone else has the right to run….While I am not advocating a state-administered religious test, I certainly believe that every voter has the right to take a candidate’s views, religious and otherwise, into account in his or her vote. So doing does not make me a “bigot” or mean that I’m imposing a “religious test.” It simply means that I believe a person’s religious views tell us a great deal about what a person’s governing philosophy will be.”
Technically, Smith is correct, he is not advocating a religious test, because religious test has a very specific meaning, and he is not using it. But what the state is not allowed to do, it seems Smith is encouraging you to do personally. That seems like a very dangerous piece of advice. And as has already been said, a false and “dangerous” religion can still take correct positions that are relevant to leading this country. Mormon Romney, being a Republican, is already in line with my general political philosophy and Romney has been fairly (though not entirely) consistent with the shared beliefs of most Republicans. If Romney has an unintentional effect on Mormon growth, I don’t see how we could possibly judge his political philosophy or competence as a leader on it. That seems like a complete and total non-sequitur.
Smith attempts to draw some support when he says, “What’s so controversial about this? Tens of millions of Americans believe religion is important in the selection of a president….a poll came out saying that about a third of white evangelicals were “less likely” to vote for a Mormon. After doing a little math and factoring out children, that’s about 10 million voters. Another poll said that about 40 percent of all Americans would be less likely to vote for a Mormon. That same poll, by the way, said that about 33 percent would be less likely to vote for an evangelical. Americans take religion into account.” That might be so, but this is no way justifies it. As Smith mentioned, Kennedy had to give a speech about religion (his Catholicism was under scrutiny, for similar reasons that Smith is criticizing Romney) and Obama had to give a speech about race, and so now it is Romney’s turn to give such a monumental speech, one that Smith thinks Romney probably can’t deliver. But I think that example works against him. We now realize, in retrospect, how silly those issues were. We now have no real problems with a Catholic running for President, and race has perhaps an infinitesimal affect on leadership, thus making these walls entirely morally unnecessary for Kennedy and Obama. This means that Romney probably shouldn’t have to climb that wall because it really doesn’t matter. I think Kennedy hit it on the head when he said what mattered was “not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in.”
But perhaps the most dangerous part of this idea is what will happen if this becomes normalized all across the political spectrum. This allows for a foot in the door for all kinds of religious scrutiny for all religious believers. This argument has been put forth by Hugh Hewitt here and described here. I can imagine many an atheist saying all religious people are unfit for service for the same reasons. Already we see bestsellers such as God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens arguing just that (emphasis mine). All kinds of theological questions will become a part of American politics, and the criticisms we give Romney will be aimed at Christians in general in elections to come. Jesus recognized that there are two kingdoms, that of God’s, and that of Cesar. Such distinctions must be made.
A defense of Romney today is a defense of Christianity tomorrow.
Well, I personally don’t believe that it is something that, as Christians, we should be too concerned about. However, some Christians do take that into heavy consideration. It ought not be that way, yet there it is. It follows that I must comment and put my two cents in on this issue.
I’ve heard of some concerns about Romney’s Mormonism, but never gave it much thought. If a candidate has the same philosophy as me and stands on the same sides of important issues as I do, then I consider this person to be a favorable candidate. Because this is more or less my thought process for choosing a candidate, religion is, for the most part, irrelevant, and I suspected that this would be the same method employed by my fellow American voters. So the idea that a candidates religion should be an issue is foreign to me. However, since this is my first election as a Christian, and I am now more aware of Christian thought in America, I now realize that view may be a bit naive. However, I am still convinced that Romney’s Mormonism is not a deciding factor.
In a recent article written by Warren Cole Smith, it is argued that Romney, and any other Mormon for that matter, is unfit to serve as President of the United States. Smith received a lot of heat for the article, being criticized as bigoted and setting up an unconstitutional religious test for office. His central argument can be presented in the following syllogism:
1. If one’s beliefs are false, then the behavior will eventually be warped
2. Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs are false
3. Therefore, Romney’s behavior will be warped
This argument comes off to me as unsound. We can see this if we apply a modus tollens. Is Smith willing to say that if one’s behavior is not warped, whatever he means by warped, then that means his belief is therefore true? That’s what he is saying logically, but I can’t imagine anyone saying that this is true. I have non-believing friends and family members who do good things, who’s behavior is not, at times, warped. Is their unbelief therefore true? Obviously not.
All people can do good things because we are made in God’s image. Because Christianity is true, the world works and operates as described by the Christian worldview. It would be impossible to live any other way. One might give lip service to a contrary worldview, but they must, at some point, borrow from Christianity, at the cost of consistency. This would be a kind of “upper story leap” that Francis Schaeffer described.
Also, there may be some ambiguity in the word “belief”. What exactly does Smith mean by belief? Does he mean a general worldview, or particular beliefs about issues, such as marriage and abortion? As Francis Beckwith points out, the first premise “depends on the plausibility of the belief in question and not on the overall plausibility of the worldview from which it heralds.” It may be so, and it is quite observable, that false worldviews may have some true beliefs, and we must asses the individual issues on it’s own merit, and to attack the worldview hints at a genetic fallacy.
Smith has a second argument, and one that I think resonates with the concerned Christian on Romney’s Mormonism. He argues:
1. A candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve
2. Romney has the effect of promoting a false and dangerous religion
3. Therefore, Romney is unfit to serve
Unlike the first argument, I think both premises are dubious. The second premise is an interesting sociological claim, which Smith presents no evidence for. I would like to see a correspondence between the presidents religion and growth of their religion thereafter (but upon some reflection, this might be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, so how this study would be conducted I have no idea). To my knowledge, there has been no such study. So it’s unclear if Romney’s presidency will actually have this effect on his religion.
The first premise is what has come under some heavy fire. Some believe that this sets up a religious test. Concerning this, Smith replies, “…what I affirm, is that Mitt Romney or anyone else has the right to run….While I am not advocating a state-administered religious test, I certainly believe that every voter has the right to take a candidate’s views, religious and otherwise, into account in his or her vote. So doing does not make me a “bigot” or mean that I’m imposing a “religious test.” It simply means that I believe a person’s religious views tell us a great deal about what a person’s governing philosophy will be.”
Technically, Smith is correct, he is not advocating a religious test, because religious test has a very specific meaning, and he is not using it. But what the state is not allowed to do, it seems Smith is encouraging you to do personally. That seems like a very dangerous piece of advice. And as has already been said, a false and “dangerous” religion can still take correct positions that are relevant to leading this country. Mormon Romney, being a Republican, is already in line with my general political philosophy and Romney has been fairly (though not entirely) consistent with the shared beliefs of most Republicans. If Romney has an unintentional effect on Mormon growth, I don’t see how we could possibly judge his political philosophy or competence as a leader on it. That seems like a complete and total non-sequitur.
Smith attempts to draw some support when he says, “What’s so controversial about this? Tens of millions of Americans believe religion is important in the selection of a president….a poll came out saying that about a third of white evangelicals were “less likely” to vote for a Mormon. After doing a little math and factoring out children, that’s about 10 million voters. Another poll said that about 40 percent of all Americans would be less likely to vote for a Mormon. That same poll, by the way, said that about 33 percent would be less likely to vote for an evangelical. Americans take religion into account.” That might be so, but this is no way justifies it. As Smith mentioned, Kennedy had to give a speech about religion (his Catholicism was under scrutiny, for similar reasons that Smith is criticizing Romney) and Obama had to give a speech about race, and so now it is Romney’s turn to give such a monumental speech, one that Smith thinks Romney probably can’t deliver. But I think that example works against him. We now realize, in retrospect, how silly those issues were. We now have no real problems with a Catholic running for President, and race has perhaps an infinitesimal affect on leadership, thus making these walls entirely morally unnecessary for Kennedy and Obama. This means that Romney probably shouldn’t have to climb that wall because it really doesn’t matter. I think Kennedy hit it on the head when he said what mattered was “not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in.”
But perhaps the most dangerous part of this idea is what will happen if this becomes normalized all across the political spectrum. This allows for a foot in the door for all kinds of religious scrutiny for all religious believers. This argument has been put forth by Hugh Hewitt here and described here. I can imagine many an atheist saying all religious people are unfit for service for the same reasons. Already we see bestsellers such as God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens arguing just that (emphasis mine). All kinds of theological questions will become a part of American politics, and the criticisms we give Romney will be aimed at Christians in general in elections to come. Jesus recognized that there are two kingdoms, that of God’s, and that of Cesar. Such distinctions must be made.
A defense of Romney today is a defense of Christianity tomorrow.
Comments
Post a Comment