Listen to any political speech and the token “God Bless America” will invariably be tacked on to the end. In a country so overwhelmingly religious, politicians’ spiritual beliefs are called into question, yet, at the same moment, labeled a “private” affair.
While politicians needn’t necessarily be religious, the views themselves are a legitimate issue to discuss and, if necessary, to criticize.
In this light, we should reject the notion that the religion of our politicians “doesn’t matter.”
Consider: Would we criticize a person who claims to be in dialogue with the Supreme Being? Would we criticize him if we could delineate his political views from his private spiritual belief?
Of course we would, but more importantly, we should. Tellingly, that profile remarkably fits George W. Bush.
As 2012 draws close, the presidential election is heavy on the American public’s mind – a mind that is, for the most part, Christian.
Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, two high-profile candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, have deliberately infused their religious beliefs into their campaigns.
Without a doubt, if they are going to run on that platform, it is a platform that should be open to discussion.
Do we truly want a president that is so aggressively religious?
Unique in this field is Mitt Romney, who, in many ways, would be served well by the absence of a conversation about religion.
As a Mormon, he faces an upstream battle by simply being religious. A June 2011 ABC News article notes one-in-four voters would be less likely to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. That statistic can provide us with a few conclusions.
First, religion is still extremely important to the American public in modern times – that, in itself, is a reason for politicians to have to own up to their ideas and take the response. By extension, considering pure election strategy for the GOP, Romney’s Mormonism should be discussed as potential handicap if he were to square off with Barack Obama in 2012.
Second, the American voter should criticize the doctrines that inform our representatives.
Bachmann and Perry both credit their Christianity for their social views.
Bachmann, specifically, has had some rather biting, faith-inspired critiques of gay marriage.
Along these lines, once again, Romney is unique.
Romney, in a fashion deliberately reminiscent of John F. Kennedy, has sought to make his Mormonism a neutral issue – insisting people should not vote for him due to his being a Mormon, yet by the same token, not exclude him on those grounds.
Take abortion for example. Romney is a self-avowed pro-lifer. Is it not perfectly legitimate for the American public to speculate if his Mormonism is influencing his position on this ostensibly moral issue?
Since the president of the United States is the foremost face of our country, we should consider the identity of whom we elect.
What would having a Mormon president say about us? That we are religiously tolerant? That we are Hell-bound blasphemers? That we are immoral? That we accept all ideologies?
It can say all of these things but the important note is it says something.
Constructive conversations about Mitt Romney’s religion are needed – if anything, to stop people from thinking he has five wives.
Ideas certainly have consequences.
We as the public that might elect him — or Perry or Bachmann, etc. — to the most powerful position in the world have to take into account the ideas he subscribes to.
I privately wonder what will happen when a nonbeliever runs for president and suddenly the “God Bless America” doesn’t make an appearance in his or her speech. Surely his or her lack of religion will inspire divisiveness and conflict. Above all, we should hope for conversation then — and now — and not naively relegate that discourse to the status of “not mattering.”
