It’s funny. Of all the positions I would expect from Evangelicals, concern about freedom of religion…too much freedom of religion, that is…would not be one of them. Yet, in recent weeks evangelical media outlets have repeatedly asked the question, “What if Mormonism grows as the result of a Mormon president?”
I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer, so let me give one.
My answer is a resounding, “So what?” Keep in mind, I consider myself an Evangelical of sorts, and, other than monotheism, I have absolutely no ties to Mormon theology. In fact, and I say this with as much respect as one can, I find some of their doctrine utterly unbelievable. Yet, despite that fact, I see absolutely no threat in a Mormon president or a growing Mormon faith.
Let me humbly propose two principles that cement those sentiments.
The first principle is illustrated in a unique characteristic of democracy. Namely, that freedom which you seek to repress in others will always, like a rabid dog, turn on you. Seek to take away freedom or equality of religious opportunity from one faith, and that stumbling block will inadvertently be cast into the path of your own.
American history has proven: when you bind the hands of others, you bind yours as well. A perfect non-religious example is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance legislation. In a nutshell, it sought to restrict the influence of special interest groups by enacting restrictions on both the amount of money those groups can contribute to presidential campaigns, as well as restrictions on what those groups can say in the press. The idea was to return the power to the individual. But it didn’t work because legislators forgot one important point…special interest groups are composed of individuals. Now we are stuck with legislation that restricts what can be contributed or said by organized groups of voting Americans.
Am I saying that a non-vote for a Mormon is the same as governmental oppression of religion? Of course not. What I am saying, however, is that certain Evangelicals should spend less energy trying to pull the political strings of free-market faith, and spend much more time boldly living out the noble tenants of their own beliefs. As McCain and Feingold demonstrated, if you pull on the strings which hold up our principled freedoms long enough, you’re likely to hang yourself.
And that segues into my next principle, which is, oddly enough: Principles.
I am consistently baffled by a phenomenon among Evangelical voters. When presented with a candidate, they look first at the candidate’s religion, and second at their values. The first response I get from Evangelicals is, “People get their values from their religion!”
To which I respond, “Thank you” because they are right. But that only applies when the candidate in question actually lives out their faith. Therefore, why not examine one’s values first, and religion second, because their values never lie. I can claim Catholicism, attend Mass occasionally, but rarely conform to the values of the Catholic faith. The same goes for Protestants, and any other faith or non-faith that one may vaguely pursue. As with all beliefs, the best measure of genuine faith is what is done under pressure. That is exactly why Evangelicals must consider candidates like Romney without fear. He is a family man, a person of integrity, humble, and is servant-oriented in his approach to both his faith and public office.
And he readily admits that his values have come from his faith.
While Evangelicals have distinct religious disagreements with the Mormon faith, they must remember that they are not electing him to pulpit or parish. They are electing him to lead, with character, a nation that is eclectic in its religious composition and, for now, free in its religious expression. This was the design of the founding fathers, fragmented as they were on issues of religion. They desired that the American voters elect candidates based not on their faith but on their commitment to preserving our constitutional freedoms.
As in freedom to choose one’s faith, regardless of the President’s.
