The “wall” that separates the Church from the US government is that same wall which allows us all to worship as we see fit or to abstain from worship altogether. The fruit of the Spirit which should be a result of our experiences with the Divine manifests itself in the lives we choose to lead. Why is it, then, that a man who is not a member of a mainline denomination yet presents an impressive resume of integrity, determination, and accomplishment and has a family anyone would be proud of and has been married to the same woman for all his married time is suddenly suspect in the eyes of conservative evangelicals because his religious dogma does not suit them?
It is even more laughable when the rate of divorce among evangelicals is compared to the much lower rate of divorce among Mormons. Depending on the source, agnostics and atheists have a lower rate of divorce than evangelicals. Presumably both religious groups read the same Bible (although the Mormons also have their Book of Mormon) that speaks of the same Jesus with the same teachings on marriage, yet one group seems to take these teachings more seriously than the other even though the group with the higher divorce rate is typically very vocal and judgmental (and with a tendency to literal biblical interpretations) toward those who do not ascribe to the same theological doctrines, again reading the same words attributed to the same Man who said, “Judge not…” and “plank in your own eye while worrying about the speck in another’s…”, etc.
None of this is to suggest that other potential candidates who have suffered through one or two divorces are unfit to serve as president of this nation. Oddly, however, Rudy Giuliani is currently leading the Republican pack in the national polls and is giving the evangelicals fits not only because he is on his third marriage but also because he is pro-choice. If the evangelical voter base is as broad as it once seemed to be, then, why are Mr. Romney and Mr. Huckabee not rating higher than they currently are? These gentlemen are pro-life, conservative, married only once, and are seemingly devoted to their respective faiths.
If it is that America is “ready” for a woman president or a black president, how dare we suggest that America is not “ready” for a Mormon president? Senator Clinton is a female and will always be a female. Likewise, Senator Obama is black and will always be black. These traits are a part of the total fabric of their being; anything less, and they would not be who and what they are. What they are not, however, is traditional in the strictest sense of being a white, male, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant. Gender and race alone, however, are not qualifying nor disqualifying characteristics for the nation’s highest office though these two presidential wanna-be’s are at least partly defined in such a way because America is “ready”. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen.
So Mr. Romney is a member of a church that is somewhat secretive and relatively closed to outsiders, as evidenced by his wife’s family being excluded from the marriage ceremony that took place inside the temple because they are not Mormon. This is a practice that has presumably been in place for years. Is it such practices as this that could cause evangelical Christians to be suspicious of what Mormons do and how they do it?
Consider this. Whatever goes on behind these closed doors is as much a part of who Mr. Romney has become over the years as Senator Clinton’s gender is to her and Senator Obama’s race is to him. What Mr. Romney has learned in having been a part of this church feeds and informs his sense of right and wrong, helps him to remain faithful to his one and only wife and, together, raise a decent family, and maintain a sense of ethical behavior that has faced no serious challenge beyond the hunting license thing. Yet according to some evangelicals, America is not “ready” for a Mormon president?
Also consider this. America was apparently “ready” for an admitted adulterer (though professed Baptist and, presumably, Christian) as president, reasoning that these indiscretions alone should not preclude anyone (or maybe this particular one) from serving as chief executive of the nation. How does this not speak to the fundamental character of the man while another man’s Mormon religion is somehow a threat? Granted, we are talking about two different voting blocs but the gist of the inconsistency remains.
Evangelicals need to be very careful moving forward into this election season with this dogmatic chip on their collective shoulder. It already is that they are, as other common-interest groups are, much maligned because of the radical actions of a few self-proclaimed “leaders” who take sound core beliefs and values to such an extreme as to alienate religious moderates and some conservatives and then render what should be a “good news” message moot to non-believers. One cannot help but to wonder whether evangelicals would rather be judged on what they proclaim to believe or how they choose to live.
No comments:
Post a Comment