Religion, Politics, and I'm all in - Sort Of

Religion and Politics

1. Mormons aren't Christians. I think that point has been hammered home enough.

2. But politically, so what? Mormons vote like Southern Baptists and come down on the same side of most issues of public morality like conservative Christians do. If you're a socially conservative lawmaker, wouldn't you rather have a Mormon in your legislative foxhole than a Kennedy-style cafeteria Catholic or progressive mainline Protestant? I'm no Romney fan, but is there really no meaningful political difference between Good-Mormon Mitt and Bad-Catholic Rudy, to say nothing of Liberal-Protestant Hillary?

3. There are plenty of good reasons for conservative Christians not to vote for Mr. Romney, but his religious beliefs are not among them. Do Christians want to be in the position of rejecting a candidate whose political views and moral values they agree with, solely because they don't like his religion? On what grounds would they condemn secularists for rejecting Christian candidates?

4. "If Mitt Romney believes what Mormonism teaches, no telling what he'll believe," Oh? Really. Non-Christians have to overlook the fact thatChristian candidates profess to believe that God became man, was murdered and rose from the dead. They have to ignore the fact that some Christians believe that same God-man mysteriously appears as bread and wine under certain circumstances, and others believe that the universe was created in seven literal days. The content of a religion's doctrinal teaching is not a reliable guide to the overall judgment of one of its adherents.

5. Which isn't to say that doctrine doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches clearly that there is to be no separation of religion and state and that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims. To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.

6. Does freedom require religion, as Mr. Romney asserts? We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss John Adams' observation that the U.S. Constitution is made"only for a moral and religious people" and will not work for any other.His point was that maintaining political liberty requires a people capable of governing themselves and restraining their passions for the greater good. He might have said "moral" people, and left it at that, because in his day and in ours, one can find morally upright men and women who have no religious faith and believers who are morally corrupt.

7. But the crooked timber of humanity is frail indeed. If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism?

8. Mr. Romney, as a Mormon, may not be a Christian, but his values are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christians who judge a candidate's fitness for the presidency based on his particular profession of faith should reflect on the quality of governance our devoutly evangelical president has provided over the last seven years. Martin Luther is supposed to have said that he would rather be governed by a wise Muslim than a foolish Christian.

Smart man, that Luther. For a heretic.

But here in lies the rub, I am sick to death of this crop of Republicans,and annoyed and peeved with how gullible I’d allowed myself to be abou tGeorge W. Bush, so I’m reluctant to get too excited about any candidate. I actually considered not even bothering to vote. Call it Republican fatigue, but no matter, I can never see myself voting for a Democrat(except for maybe an Obama-Giuliani race).

When I say conservatism, I imply that culture should always precede politics, and we’ve placed way too much hope in politics as a way to move the culture. None of the current crop of candidates fits this mold.Instead of pointing to all the why’s of why I say that, I’ll just say I think there is only one candidate out there who can understand what motivates conservatives like us.

Mike Huckabee

But, being honest with myself, all I am really saying is that I think all we are guaranteed is that he’d be better than any other Republican we can chose from. Does that mean he’d make a good President?

Look, no one who gets to that level of politics is going to be uncompromised, or will be perfect. I worry about Huckabee's lack of experience in foreign affairs, but no more than I do any other GOP candidate except John McCain. And I think there is legitimate concern he may really be “George Bush – Lite”

But I keep coming back to Mike, almost in spite of my misgivings (is that good or bad?). He's right on key social issues, which are the most important issues to me. I think his basic orientation toward the economy and families is where I'd like to see my president be (that is, I think somebody could show him material about Sam's Club Republicans and the work of Wendell Berry, and he'd get it). He's got that sensibility. After the past 15 years or so of intense partisanship, I really like his bit about being conservative, but not angry about it (this is something I like about Obama too, on the other side). I mean, we're always going to have partisanship, but I'm tired of both sides orienting themselves around hating the political Other. The tone change Huck would bring to our politics would be most welcome. A vote for Huck is in part a vote to shift the conservative movement in a more traditionalist direction, opening up the conversation on the Right to ideas that haven't really been part of our discussion for a long, long time. And that's pretty great.

And what of Ron Paul. Well....this