Un-American
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
I said, ‘That’s a very un-American thing to say.’ I mean, this is a country that based on religious freedom. ~Josh Romney
Obviously, Mormons are free to take offense at evangelical and other Christian opposition to their religion, and I would be surprised if they didn’t, but could we please be spared this “un-American” argument? First of all, it’s not very edifying, since it assumes that there’s something “un-American” about disagreements that inevitably arise between religions in a pluralistic society. It also implies that the content of a religion is ultimately irrelevant to public life, and that the price of pluralism is the devaluing of truth. Those assumptions are themselves extremely dangerous to a healthy religious pluralism in a free society. It is supposed to be “un-American” to make these disagreements a reason for not voting for someone, which isn’t persuasive at all. The more often I hear this argument, the more I resent the idea that you are somehow lacking in patriotism or American-ness if you take seriously that a candidate has significantly different fundamental beliefs that you don’t and can’t hold. Besides, simply as a matter of tactics, berating people for being bad Americans is not a terribly good way of persuading them.
A bit typical of the arrogance that crippled the Romney campaign from the get-go. I am so very happy that he has dropped out. The “let’s pretend religious differences are just trivial epiphenomena” meme reduces religious faith to the status of your favorite sports team.
When you say that about a Jewish candidate I will take you seriously, but for now it is just a cheap shot against a group that doesn’t have the power to penalize you.
Not to say I disagree with you premise, I just think electing to make this point against a Mormon is selective.
There are a LOT of negative statements above Jesus in the Talmud, for example. Didn’t hear that point get raised when Joe Liebermann was the VP candidate for some odd reason.
Orthodox Jews also wear funny underoos. Didn’t hear many comments about that either.
Now, I am not picking on Jews (really), but just asking for consistency for Mormons.
I have also pointed out elsewhere that Mormonism is a religious founded in the US, unlike some other religions with very foreign roots. This is worth thinking about as well.
It would also be quite fine if Christian voters opted not to vote for other non-Christian candidates as well, just as it would be fine if non-Christian voters refused to vote for a Christian, and more specifically for a certain kind of particularly effusive Christian. When this comes up, I wouldn’t have any problem arguing for the legitimacy of a decision not to vote for a Jewish or Muslim or other candidate. As I have also said repeatedly, this is not the best way to choose a candidate, and may result in very bad choices, but I insist that there is nothing illegitimate, much less “un-American” about including a candidate’s religion as a significant factor in making voting decisions.
Few have argued that people cannot take strong exception to someone else’s religious beliefs. They have focused their criticism exclusively on a political expression of this, and so that is the line of argument I’m addressing.
I would argue that no one should take “strong exception” to the religious beliefs of others, except with they curtail human rights. And I do think it is “Un-American,” in an ideal, if not historical sense, to do so.
Whether or not one’s religious beliefs include a belief in the possibility of error, they should be couched in an awareness that you will appear as wrong in your adherence to one dogma as adherents of another dogma appear to you. What’s American is the belief that there’s room for all reasonable varieties of religious experience however error drenched. “Room” means politely ignoring what you take to be eccentricities and follies of others as you would have them do with what you assume they take to be yours.
Where a candidate subscribes to the tenets of a faith that have direct political import – e.g. a belief in the inferiority of women or obedience to the dictates of religious leader, then you have a poltical rather than religious basis for opposition. When a candidate’s motives or worldview is unsuitable because of a faith conviction, e.g. pacifism no matter the situation, you have another.
Finally, I think it’s American to appreciate that people “have a religion” to a variety of degrees and for a variety of reasons. In a modern, pluralistic nation we appreciate that you can “have a religion” for reasons entirely exclusive of what its proprietors insist its content. So a pro-choice woman can support Catholic Ted Kennedy.
But what grand American principle would someone be violating by taking such “strong exception”? First, it is a free country, or is supposed to be, so as long as strong disagreements over religion do not endanger civil order or the legal rights of any person there is nothing antithetical to either the common good or the constitutional protections afforded to all in these disagreements. Religious liberty is not infringed in any way, nor is the free exercise of religion by members of any religion. No disabilities are being imposed by law, but voters are expressing their preference. We are speaking of the most minimal kind of expression of disapproval, but it has been treated variously as an “unconstitutional religious test,” which has nothing to do with this, or simply irrational prejudice, when it is not really that, either.
I don’t agree with the idea that religious teachings are irrelevant to political debate except insofar as they have policy implications, or at least I don’t agree with the way it is usually stated. In my view, a much broader range of beliefs may ultimately have implications for how a candidate sees the world and so have implications for how he acts once in office, and those should be subject to scrutiny.
I think it is fair if a creationist is scrutinised for his beliefs, and we do that all the time. It would be equally appropriate to apply the same scrutiny to an atheist. If it is appropriate to ask someone about their view of the Bible, and we have done that in this election cycle, then how do we pretend that these essentially religious questions are to be allowed and others should be excluded? How can anyone plausibly speak of religion in the public square without moving beyond platitudes and bromides about how wonderful faith is?
I do appreciate that many Americans do not all define religious belief or “having a religion” in terms of doctrine at all, and that is part of a pluralistic society. Equally a part of that society are those who do take authoritative teachings and interpretations of Scripture to be true and essential to salvation. It is the prerogative of the latter to judge candidates accordingly.
Happily it is a country where you are free to be “unAmerican.” We are in fact fortunate that many people are, though our fortune fades if that number grows too large.
The problem with creationism is that it is objectionable science and policy rather than faith. In fact, I suspect many people who think that disparaging Evolution as unproven theory disqualifies you for national office are actually soft creationists, believing that God has touched the world at some point in some way so that the human condition is at least broadly aligned with God’s purposes. Nevertheless those people are aware that the progress of science through the centuries has uncovered countless physical mechanisms that once were assuredly divine handiwork. They are not therefore going to let their sense of faith rest on whether we know all the steps on how Evolution produced the eye or first proteins.
I do not mind my, or anyone else’s religion in the public square on Sundays (or Fridays, or Saturdays). Neither do I mind when it is in the lives of its adherents, passionate or all encompassing. But when we come to politics (or science for that matter), then I think the genius of America is that we confine ourselves to platitudes and bromides. In that way the diversity that our freedom permits and begets has a basis for us to function as a polity. So while I appreciate that few people who themselves use a faith test when deciding whom to support or oppose would want the State to establish their test, I do think that in doing so they vitiate a civic ethos in a way that should be deemed, “UnAmerican.”