First, the poll is troubling but unsurprising. Whether we like it or not, we live in a religion-besotted nation, although I would qualify that statement a great deal. I believe that much of our public discourse is religion-besotted, without ever being very clear as to what, exactly, that might mean, the historical roots of the religious dimension often dragged (sometimes kicking and screaming) into public debates, and is too often mishandled and even exploited. Historically, we have actually elected folks who, by today's standards, would be unelectable due to their religious views and practice. Two come to mind: (1) Abe Lincoln, while very often using God in his speeches, was unconventionally religious, taken with the occult, and refused to identify with any organized religion; (2) William Howard Taft (OK, not our greatest President, but certainly our largest, once getting himself stuck in the First Tub because of his enormous girth) was an active member of the large Unitarian Universalist congregation now located on Sixteenth St., NW, about a mile or so north of the White House, although a hundred years ago it was, I believe, up on Georgia Ave. somewhere. We have elected rapists (Thomas Jefferson), serial adulterers (the list begins with Jefferson and ends with Clinton, and includes FDR, Einsenhower, JFK, Warren Harding, and Ronald Reagan), possibly a gay man (James Buchanan was our only bachelor President and had a long-term friendship with another man that followed him after he left the Executive Mansion), and even one or two genocidal Presidents (Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee's "Trail of Tears"; the hounding of the Plains and Southwestern Indians, including the Sioux, the Nez Perce, the Arapaho, the Apache, and even the peaceful Hopi, the only native groups never to be in a formal or informal state of war with the United States government).
We have also had Presidents whose religious chatter was just that; Ronald Reagan is the most recent example, but I might also include George H. W. Bush who refused to receive the Washington-area Bishop of the Epicopal Church in the days before the Gulf War, because the Episcopal Bishop and Church were opposed to the war, and the Bishop wanted to hand-deliver the official statement of the church to the President. Holed up in the White House giving spiritual aid and comfort in those same days was . . . Billy Graham (who actually opposed the war). Having a Mormon as President would be no big deal, and even his candidacy is a good thing as it exposes some of the real vile hatreds many evangelical Protestants feel towards those who hold to a Third Testament.
As a side note, it isn't just Mormons who irk right-leaning Christians; Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and even Catholics are considered by many right-wingers to be "cults". It is one thing to believe, as I do, that some or even most of the things folks who profess these faiths are either silly, ignorant, or just plain false. It is another thing altogether to call people cult-members, or to question the faithfulness of those who profess these beliefs. Although I agree with Black that there is a thin line between questioning these beliefs and out-and-out bigotry, I also agree that questioning these beliefs, especially when they are trotted out as part and parcel of our public discourse and a necessary part of understanding the candidate as a candidate, is not bigotry at all, but quite necessary and reasonable.
I also agree with something else Black wrote in the second post linked above:
[W]hat you believe is unimportant as long as you have faith in something, and [such a position has] reduced any public discussion of the genuine differences that exist [between and among religions].
He is reminding us here of Eisnehower's silly saying that it doesn't matter what one believes, as long as one believes in something. Black is arguing that beliefs do matter, and that once they become part of our public debate, we need to have a real debate about them. That is why JFK talked about his Catholicism; that is why John Kerry talked about his. That is why Jimmy Carter talked about his evangelical Baptist beliefs. That is why George W. Bush talks about his spiritual renewal after an early adulthood spent in (realtively mild, we assume) debauchery. There is nothing wrong with these discussions, as long as we remember that, once they enter our public realm, they become fodder for questioning, for debate, and even for ridicule. Romney's statement that "we need a person of faith" as President is an opinion (although, if the poll cited above is any indication, it is also a fact), and should become the starting point for a real debate over the role of religion in American public life. We have been needing this debate for a long time, and maybe, just maybe, we are seeing the stirrings of one now. Let us keep the discussion going.
