What's Religion Got To Do With It?

One of the first caveats of free speech I learned long ago came up in a college journalism course and it was, "Don't yell fire in a crowded movie theater." Intentionally starting panic and causing baseless fear crosses the free speech boundary. Some free speech purists may take issue with this, but I am comfortable with the exception. It makes sense to me. 

 
Causing fear is cruel.  This recently came to mind as I tried to understand the boogie man tactics used as the Republican candidates for president try to separate themselves from the pack.  No one is crying "Fire!" but fear is a gambling chip widely used.  The most recent topic in this "be afraid" approach is the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon.  I know things are headed off the rails when religion seeps into political discussions.  It's as though a grenade is tossed into a building already on fire. (For the record, I am a registered Democrat.)

 
What is the purpose of being fixated on a candidate's religion?  We elect public officials to run governments.  We sometimes elect, but often are handed, religious officials to manage/lead our faith based groups. It's naive to think the two are easily kept separate, but it is frustrating to hear religion become the focus of a political race - it actually takes the focus off what needs to be addressed.

Photo by Dan of Free Digital Photos

I was in a Catholic grade school when President Kennedy was elected. It was not unusual to visit my friends' homes and see separate framed photos of Pope John XXIII or Pope Paul VI as well JFK, often side-by-side.  These images in many homes sent me the message that it was a big deal for a Catholic to hold the highest office in the land.  I also recall the repeated concerns of non-Catholics that Kennedy's religion would open up a papal influence in US government.  As unfounded as it may have seemed for the 20th century, there was a true historical model of why that fear was raised because many popes were very much political forces in Europe in the past.  Henry VIII's break from the politically powerful Catholic church in the 16th century resulted in today's Church of England. It was a battle of megalomaniacal proportions. European history is fraught with powerfully obsessed popes whose political potency marked the course of many countries.

The fact that people were talking about Kennedy's religion as a factor in his presidency feels odd to me today. What did it have to do with running a country?  As the Republican candidates wrestle for top position in every news cycle, the message varies but the goal is to get the message to stick.  In her op-ed piece the 10/18/11 NY Times, Maureen Dowd cites a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll which asked voters  the question "what single word came to mind for Republican candidates. For Herman Cain it was 9-9-9; for Rick Perry, Texas; and for Mitt Romney, Mormon."  Romney is quoted in the article as saying that choosing people for their religion as "repugnant." I don't know that I'd go that far but it does raise some insight into the voter mindset.  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/opinion/dowd-anne-frank-a-mormon.html?hp

This made we wonder, do we:
- use religion as a first cut when choosing candidates? Or
- regard it as one of many facets of a candidates background? Or,
-consider not considering religion when listening to candidates?

I believe many Americans consider the first and second statements and I think the third option falls far behind, yet it is the one that most intrigues me because it's the one that seems most foreign. Our government prints "In God We Trust" on our currency and uses a Bible to swear in public officials to office as well as witnesses in civil and criminal trials.  Our Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase, "One nation, under God." Yet, we are also a country that goes to sometimes awkward extremes in separating church and state. We often trip over our own clay feet. 

None of this disturbs me.  It just highlights the raw edges of who we think we are and who we want to be. Thankfully, it is a bumpy road.  So let's walk a little further down this path.  What if an atheist was a bonafide presidential candidate?  How much would the non-belief in a supreme being factor into the candidate's viability?Historically, very few non-Christians have become a US president.  There have been no Jewish presidents.  The website Monticello.org notes that Thomas Jefferson was reluctant to make his religious beliefs public or defined and quotes the third US President as saying, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

Would voters feel threatened by a candidate who is atheist?  Why would it really matter?  What is there to fear?  In Maureen Dowd's piece, Mitt Romney's Mormonism dances into that circle because it provides something different from the predictable field of spiritual beliefs.  As Ms. Dowd notes, "Kent Jackson, the associate dean of religion at Brigham Young University, says that while Mormons are Christians, 'Mormonism is not part of the Christian family tree.'”  And so Mitt Romney, candidate, is tagged outsider Mormon first, not necessarily by his own choice.  I think the other candidates delight in the front and center dangling of Romney's religion because it has a sort of "X factor" potential to concern voters.  I, too, find myself skeptical reading about the Mormon "special garments" and the fairly recent past movement of "retrospectively baptizing victims of the Holocaust" as mentioned in Ms. Dowd's opinion. 

But it brings me back to my first question: What's religion got to do with it? Having or not having a religious conviction may be a part of any candidate's background but is it of primary importance that should be shoved into the foreground?  

Photo by Taoty of Free Digital Photos

I feel the weight of this topic as I reflect on my Catholic upbringing and want to believe that I can set aside a candidate's religious notions because they should not be a qualifier for holding a political office. If the candidate makes them an issue then that most likely makes it easier to look further.  When I get into that voting booth, the candidate whose secular abilities which meet my expectations will, I believe, be the thing that matters.