"But No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required..."

Mitt Romney's religion isn't a factor

Editor's Note: Thomas's commentary is in blue and Marcie's is in purple.

Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States. He's a well educated man, hailing from Harvard Business and Law School. He attended Stanford and BYU. He worked with Bain Capital, a venture capital conglomerate that worked as a sort of trouble-shooting company. They would identify where problems were within corporations, advise them how to correct them, and help those companies make the corrections. He was Governor of Massachusetts -- the bluest of blue states -- and kept the state in line without having to raise taxes. He also pulled off the biggest rescue job in his career by saving the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002. He is ardently pro-life, fighting against embryonic stem-cell research supported by Harvard's research school. In short, Mitt Romney's a solid conservative that voters can trust and get behind.

But as Hugh Hewitt points out in his book A Mormon In The White House?, Mitt Romney has a problem. Actually it is not his problem, it is the nation's problem, and it is one that should not even be a factor in the choice for Governor Romney to be President. That is, of course, his faith. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and many people we have spoken with are hesitant to vote for a Mormon. This is due, in no small part, to the variety of anti-Mormon literature available to the public. This information, while quite possibly rooted in fact, the tone and rhetoric involved in such pieces is clearly biased and bigoted. Because many people have read such works their view of his religion is obviously hostile. This concerns us a great deal, as Constitutional conservatives, because of the dangerous precedent such attacks may set.

Marcie and I aren't Mormon; we're Catholic. And while we know a bit about the Mormon religion (many would agree that we know more than any non-Mormon should), his faith is irrelevant. The Framers, when constructing the Constitution, wanted our religious rights protected at all costs. That's why the freedom of religion lies within the First Amendment. It's also mentioned in Article VI:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Emphasis mine.)

This was included in the Constitution to protect members of different faiths from ever having to endure such a test. While several States in the post-ratification period still employed such trials, federal office holders couldn't be held to such an evaluation. In 1961 the Supreme Court struck down the States' ability to execute such a inquest. No longer could a candidate or appointee be excluded from office based on their religion.

We know many people are saying "So what? This applies to the government, not us." On the contrary, it does apply to us. We are told that this is unacceptable for the government to do, so why is it different for us? It is not. Let us say we allow this inquisition to happen, and Mitt Romney is not elected because of his faith. Not only will we have denied a competent, capable person of achieving a federal office, denying him based only on his religious identity, but we will have also created a very slippery slope. We, the people, will have literally created a new form of political attack. No one would be safe from such an assault. Thomas and I would be just as disdained as Governor Romney for our beliefs about Communion, the Trinity, or the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.

Additionally, it makes us no better than the Democrats. They are notorious for leveling unfounded swipes at nominees. The Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats did it against William Pryor. Senator Charles Schumer took the swipe at Judge Pryor's "deeply held beliefs." This was hardly an inconspicuous attack on Judge Pryor's Catholic beliefs, and despite the Democrat's claim they were not assailing him over his faith, the die was cast. And we'd be failing in our job if we didn't remind readers that this same form of attack was tried on John Kennedy in 1960 where it was alleged that the white House would be controlled from Rome; that the Pope would be the person President Kennedy would answer to if elected. It didn't happen then, and it wouldn't happen with Governor Romney.

How do we know this? Hugh Hewitt is a superb interviewer, and he posited the question to Governor Romney -- if the governor would "expect a call from [LDS] President Hinckley." Governor Romney's reply was straight-forward and to the point:

"No," he replied. "Absolutely not. And I'd also note that when you take the oath of office, that is your highest oath and first responsibility...It would be inappropriate for Church officials to contact me and it would be less than appropriate for me to take guidance from any institution other than caring first for the oath of office." (page 222)

We are aware of the argument that a politician will say whatever they must to be elected, but Mitt Romney can point to his record as Governor. In Massachusetts, Mormons were not placed on a pedestal, or given extra special privileges. He also did not proselytize to anyone on his staff or in his administration. He acted professionally in that capacity, and we believe based on his record, it would be no different for him in the White House.

Furthermore, many theologians and religious scholars have admitted that while they differ in religious views from Mitt Romney, they don't see his religion as a sort of disqualifier. John Mark Reynolds is a noted evangelical Christian who has stated for the record that while Mormonism differs from Christianity on a variety of theological points, that it is Governor Romney's excellence and integrity that are being measured. He stated in an interview (in the appendix of Mr. Hewitt's book) that we aren't electing Governor Romney to be pope or patriarch of Antioch. Were that the case, then of course he could be disqualified, but that's not the issue. The issue is could he be president? If you agreee that he has accomplished a great deal as governor, and you can ignore his religion, could he be the next Commander-in-Chief?

Indeed he could be, and he should be carefully considered. As much as we defended Mayor Giuliani against the attacks to his conservatism (which is not nearly as staunch as our own), we will defend Governor Romney's talents, and disavow those that attack his theology using that as the sole point to dislike him. In our eyes, his religion is off limits. The MSM and their Left-leaning minions will try to make as much out of his religion as they can, hoping to drive a wedge between him and the electorate. It is up to us to ignore that line of attack, and focus on his merits as a former chief executive. Thomas is correct: If we give into this sort of rhetoric, we are no different than the Left, or the anti-Mormon crowd. It would definitely be a shame to hold his faith above him, and judge him by that rather than his accomplishments. Above all, we will be giving the Left the perfect weapon to attack all others with in the future, and that is something we cannot condone or support.

He is a scholar of history, especially American history, and the United States Constitution. She is finishing her undergrad studies before moving onto law school where she will specialize in Constitutional Law. Together, Thomas and Marcie form the vanguard of conservative opinion at The Asylum -- a blogging site devoted to advancing the conservative cause by challenging the liberal lies and deceit spread by the media, and espoused by the Left in general. Both are expert debaters, and have beaten many liberals into submission with their collective wit, and unmatched knowledge. The pair are married, and reside in Arizona.

Archives of "Throwing Down the Gauntlet"

Send an e mail to Thomas Clark and Marcie Packard

Check out Thomas and Marcie's blog: The Asylum