Religious Questions Surface During Campaigns

As regular as clockwork political campaigns evoke the inevitable religious questions that are bound to come up as the electorate attempts to determine which of the candidates they prefer to be President.

That the voters would ask these questions is as natural a part of being human in civilized society as, say, wanting to know if a candidate has Nazi tendencies once it has become known that he/she once stated they admired Adolf Hitler.

Religion and spirituality are all-pervasive aspects of human life. One's views on the subject tell us much about their character, their values, how they view humanity, and how they would react in a crisis.

Thus, John Kennedy's Catholicism became an issue in the 1960 election until the candidate reassured the populace that although his religious views inform his decisions and provide solace, they would in no way usurp his oath of office to uphold, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Contrary to these questions being tantamount to a 'religious litmus test' as Mitt Romney suggested during his now-famous religion speech, they are merely attempts by the voters to get at the heart of just who is this person who is asking for their vote. Are they trustworthy? Can I relate to them at all on a personal level? Will they understand the feelings and views of someone like me?

Thus, it is only natural that the American people would have questions concerning the Mormon faith if they are considering a vote for Mitt Romney, particularly in light of the fact that most Protestants and Catholics have been taught at some time or another that Mormonism is a 'cult.'

And the answer that most are looking for is whether or not the Mormon faith that Romney espouses is too big a hurdle for them to get past. They may well decide that the candidate appears entirely reasonable and that there is nothing to fear. On the other hand they may well decide that they are entirely uncomfortable with a President who believes the teachings of the Mormon church.

But this is part of the process, and it is entirely reasonable, just as it was reasonable for Americans to inquire into Jimmy Carter's membership in a Baptist Church during the 1976 Presidential campaign. As it turns out, it was not Carter's Baptist faith that ruined him but his utter inability to lead effectively, not to mention his horrendous foreign and domestic policies.

In like manner, it is reasonable to expect Americans to have questions concerning Mike Huckabee both as a Baptist and as an ordained minister within the Baptist denomination. Are Americans comfortable with a Baptist minister as President? It may well turn out that this is totally a non-issue, since Baptists form the single largest non-Catholic denomination in the U.S.

On the other hand, the issue may be a sticking point for Huckabee. He claims, for example, that giving children of illegal aliens college tuition breaks, allowing them to move ahead of many of our own people, is the 'good and right thing to do.'

Religiously oriented people often let their emotions dictate their stance on issues which demand purely rational views. Thus, we have Catholic churches providing safe haven for illegal aliens. We have liberal Protestant churches sending money to Mexico, supposedly for 'missions,' but in actuality their generosity is only used to promote causes that hurt our own country.

It is for this reason that I could vote for an agnostic who believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights over a liberal Baptist who espouses statism or socialistic solutions to problems. I could vote for an atheist who doesn't have an ax to grind with religious folk, provided he/she espouses views similar to the Founders, over a deeply committed Christian who believes that it is somehow 'moral and ethical' to commit robbery (through higher taxes) in order to 'help the poor children of illegal immigrants.'

As Walter Williams often quips, 'For me to voluntarily reach in my pocket to help the poor is an honorable act of compassion, but for you or government to reach into my pocket and take my money for that purpose is stealing and should be punished by law.'

I fully relate to Huckabee as a Baptist, though I suspect that my brand of Baptist is much different from his southern-evangelical brand. I tend to be a Baptist in the classic, Calvinistic, reformed, non-conformist tradition--that sector of Christianity that began in England in the early 1600s as a congregational protest movement against the highly organized hierarchy of the Church of England.

These hearty souls saw no problem with alcohol, or tobacco, or some of the other so-called 'vices' that some groups identify. Huckabee's brand of Baptist comes out of southern evangelical Christianity which views 'al-kee-hol,' 't'bacee,' and 'dayncin' as horrible sins (if you recognize the three words you qualify as a bona fide southerner).

Yet I fully understand the mindset, and I am thoroughly familiar with its ramifications. Most of these folk are the salt-of-the-earth types who wouldn't hurt a flea, in spite of their rather restrictive moral standards.

It is therefore not Huckabee the Baptist that bothers me.

What bothers me is that Huckabee leads with his religion, just as did Jimmy Carter. Both have made it a central issue. At least Romney doesn't talk about his Mormonism and did so only after being hounded about it.

Fred Thompson is the perfect role model on the religion issue. In response to reporters' questions he stated, 'I am a Christian who was baptized into the Christian Church, and who believes in Jesus Christ. And that is really all that needs to be said about the matter.'

The way I see it, this was answering a legitimate question without turning the religion issue into some sort of litmus test.