Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
I wonder if Jonah's correspondent realizes the irony in first writing "I will not vote for a Mormon," "I rule out voting for a Mormon" and "[e]lecting, or even nominating, a Mormon continues to send the message to Americans that Mormons are fine and dandy, Christians like everyone else," and then in the very next paragraph, "I do not support a 'religious test' for people running for office." Huh? How is refusing to vote for a Mormon qua a Mormon -- expressly because in your view "they claim to be Christian[] when they are not Christians" and you don't want to be seen to be condoning what you see as their flawed religious views -- not precisely a "religious test"?
Consider an almost identical missive, changing only which religion is being objected to:
There is no policy that I think a Catholic would pursue that I find objectionable. I will not vote for a Catholic because they claim to be Christian, when they are not Christians. Electing, or even nominating, a Catholic continues to send the message to Americans that Catholics are fine and dandy, Christians like everyone else. Thousands of Christians are converted to Catholicism each year, and it is done under false pretenses. From what I have read, Catholics are very good at appearing to be orthodox protestants with new recruits. It's only later that the blatantly non-orthodox views come out. So, I rule out voting for a Catholic not because of actual policies they might pursue, but because of the message their election would send to Americans.
Let me make a couple more quick comments. I would vote for a Jew. I would vote for a Hindu, an atheist, etc. Also, I do not support a "religious test" for people running for office.
Religious test now?
In the comments: Theobromophile says that "[t]he only way this isn't a 'religious test' is in the sense of 'religious test, imposed by the government,'" a distinction Pat agrees with, construing the writer's later remarks (as I don't) as going to a de jure religious test rather than a personal religious test:
The Constitutional prohibition against a "religious test" for public office prohibits statutory requirements. It is not a prohibition directed against individual voters. There is nothing inconsistent in opposing a formal, statutory religious test while also using a candidate's religion to sway your own personal vote.
Our RSS feed
The only way this isn't a
The only way this isn't a "religious test" is in the sense of "religious test, imposed by the government."
Granted, as a libertarian, I have no problems with citizens doing things that the government cannot do. Absurd, however.
Not at all...
The Constitutional prohibition against a "religious test" for public office prohibits statutory requirements. It is not a prohibition directed against individual voters. There is nothing inconsistent in opposing a formal, statutory religious test while also using a candidate's religion to sway your own personal vote.
Your hypothetical comparison to Catholicism is rather a stretch. The doctrinal differences between Mormonism and all (other) Christian denominations is far, far greater than those between the Catholic Church and the various Protestant and Orthodox denominations. With minor variations in some aspects of the Old Testament, the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are identical. Neither claims any prophets or new gospels which are not claimed by the other.
In the context of the whole,
In the context of the whole, I took him to be saying that he doesn't approve of personal religious tests. I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume what he means is that he's opposed to de jure religious tests but will himself apply them, I just think that's a less likely reading of the letter.
conceded the comparison is more of a stretch, but I think that for illustrative purposes it'll suffice.
"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."
Well, I still have to disagree...
The writer is a Christian, and is concerned about the perception and definition of Christianity. He fears that election of a Mormon will do damage to the perception and definition of Christianity in a way which the election of an atheist or Hindu would not.
Certainly if Romney were elected President, it would be a boost for Mormonism in general. We routinely acknowledge that principle in many other contexts. The eventual election of a female President, for example, will be seen as advancing the cause of women generally, regardless of what policies she may promote. Universities are boosted by the election of their alumni, simply by the prestige of association, not because of any policies which may be enacted.
The writer believes that Mormonism is particularly dangerous to Christianity because of the potential for confusion and what he sees as false claims that Mormonism is a Christian religion. Thus, while he would vote for members of other religions and denominations, he won't vote for a Mormon.
While I don't agree with his approach, I don't think it is irrational or inconsistent with his disavowal of a religious test.
Situation could be the same for Jews
were a Jewish candidate from the group that visited Ahmadinejad. Imagine an anti-Zionist candidate or a Jews for Jesus one. There are more than you think and these last few Kosian years have produced many more. I would understand Jews making a test among themselves. Again, Jews would hardly rally for one of the many self-loathing Jewish Leftists.
I think I see Pat's point. I am more angry about an illiberal liberal perverting the general liberal cause than a conservative. What is worse, the destruction from within an ideological base or external combat governed by rules of conduct? Conservatives don't threaten the heart of a Liberal. A Christian doesn't threaten a Jew at the moment (but I adivise people look at hate crimes for 2006). Just look at Sunnis v Shiites.
On the other hand, Mormons, like Scientologists, are the same in terms of the Constitution once the IRS approved their status. There is no religious qualification or test for office. The test here seems to be an intra-religious one and individual choice. It doesn't strike me as about whether a Mormon's faith disqualifies them for office.
That's a real good point, Max.
I am more angry about an illiberal liberal perverting the general liberal cause than a conservative.
TRuer words were never spoken. Conservatives will try to defeat liberalism, but nothing destroys the credibility of liberalism, like false liberals, or illiberal liberals. Keeping on topic, it has been said that the greatest threat to the credibility of Christianity is anot atheism, but those who profess to be Christians, yet behave like they're not. No one expects atheists to live godly, after all. I understand the point about a Mormon president possibly undermining biblical Christianity, even though I don't agree with it.
What I mean is, while I recognize the clear and bright-line distinctions between Mormonism and biblical Christianity, I don't think that having a Mormon elected President will necessarily blur those distinctions. I think it is the duty of bible-believing Christians to preach the word, and maintain them. I'm an evengelical Christian, but I could vote for Mormon, if I was convinced he would not impose his faith on non-Mormons. I'd be lying if I didn't say that Mormonism wouldn't be factored in, but I wouldn't reject Mormonism out of hand, without careful study.
I agree with Pat that having a de jure religious test doesn't mean one cannot personally make choice based on religion, although I think the Founders at least wanted us to try not to personally reject candidates out of hand because of their religious affiliations.
Of course, when it comes to Mitt Romney, his Mormon faith is the least of my concerns.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
Well, of course I'm no Jesus...LOL
Now if Jon Kay was Jewish, I would be extremely pissed. If he was running for President and Jewish, I would vote against him. As a blogger more than entitled to his views, I respond with amazement. Reasons are stated above.
As far as Mormonisim, I think the degree of one's faith in the literal words of a particular religion is important. I think we forget that. One can be a Christian and not deny any evidence for evolution. One can be a Jew and not believe G-d created woman from Adam's rib. No matter what your faith, the highest secular office demands an oath to America. When religious belief makes that impossible, a Presdient should resign. I have less problem with Mitt, if he shows moderation in his religious belief. I would also have a problem with a Jewish candidate that refused to work on Saturday. The job description is 24/7.
is this your "proof"?
Pat, you wrote:
"It is not a prohibition directed against individual voters." It should be...
"With minor variations in some aspects of the Old Testament, the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are identical. Neither claims any prophets or new gospels which are not claimed by the other."
So...this your "proof" that Mormonism is less right (or less wrong) than Christian denominations? You've nailed the whole issue on the head here - you can't argue against the irrational, so you make the irrational as the foundation of your argument. Well done!
I did not make any such claim...
Frank, I did not claim to have any "proof" that Mormonism is less right or less wrong than any (other) Christian denominations. In fact, I didn't make any normative claim about Mormonism at all. I was simply comparing the differences between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Mormonism.
As for having a prohibition directed at individual voters, just how would you propose to enforce that? Would you interrogate all those who didn't vote for Romney to determine whether their votes were motivated by anti-Mormonism or simply by a distaste for their policies? What would your remedy be?
Inquisition! Bring out the
Inquisition! Bring out the Comfy Chair!
Frightening Thought...
The remedy is worse than the disease. Sure, it would be fantastic if people would vote for candidates without engaging in invidious discrimination, but that is nothing short of totalitarianism. One of our essential freedoms is the right to be a jerk, as defined by society; society may shun you, but the government cannot enforce social morals.
Moreover, there is an issue of line-drawing. Religion seems to be a terrible basis for discrimination. How about marital status? Should Condi not get the same level of respect, if she were running for office, as does Hillary? After all, Condi has the sense to not marry an adulterer. (Sorry, any Clinton-lovers out there.) Does that mean that conservatives, who disapprove of adultery, should not be allowed to not vote for Guiliani because of his marital history? What if they thought that he would be a poor person to lead pro-marriage and pro-family intiiatives, due to his poor track record on the subject?
Again, 1984 is not a how-to manual. We aren't going to run around monitoring people's thoughts and punishing them if they don't line up with our orthodoxy.
As for Mormonism - it simply cannot be reconciled with the Christian or the Catholic Bible, in the same way that the Muslim religion cannot be reconciled with it. (Shrug.) There are many people who are more certain of the values of atheists and agnostics who were raised in Christian households, because their default value system is the same.
Agree about freedom
Yes 1984 is not a how-to-manual. And were Condi to run and she prefers not to marry at all, should she be dissed by conservatives who prefer married candidates? People are free to determine to what degree factors are important.
The default value system would include understanding the Constitution and the supreme importance of the common good v particular articles of faith.
"It is not a prohibition
Will you give us a list of the legitimate criteria on which voters can base their decision?