Romney vs. McCain on torture

September 21, 2006 By

romney with bushThe latest scuttlebutt on the 2008 presidential hopes of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has him cozying up to President Bush on the torture and interrogation of terrorists. And it’s all in an attempt to differentiate himself from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has been fighting Bush tooth and nail on the issue.

Neither side is exactly the ideal candidate of what’s been called the Christian right that helped loft Bush into power (evangelicals reportedly gave Bush nearly 40 percent of his vote in 2004), but that makes things all the more interesting.

Check out this analysis by Hotline On Call:

The clever back-and-forth came to halt Sunday, when Adam Nagourney, the NYT‘s chief political reporter, got Romney on the phone and on the record. “I am foursquare behind the president on this,” Romney, said referring to McCain’s dispute with Pres Bush over the torture issue. “I believe that we should do everything possible to support those people at the front line who are responsible for enforcing the war on terrorism.” But Romney wasn’t done. Asked if this was the “sharpest” area of disagreement with McCain, Romney said: ” No. There are a number of things. We have different views on McCain-Feingold, differing views on immigration policy, differing views on the interrogation of terrorists.” Perhaps looking to soften the blow, he then offered, “There are also many other areas where we see eye to eye.”

The big question for me involves how Mormons view the torture issue theologically. As far as I can tell, their leaders do not address the issue directly and it’s unclear that Romney would be willing to allow his religious beliefs to affect his politics. It is not a situation where Romney could be refused the church’s blessing, as was attempted with John Kerry and other Catholic Democrats for their position on abortion, but I could be wrong. Are there any Mormon readers out there who have more information?

Reporters looking to follow up on this should check out this great resource for reporting on all things Romney at religionlink.org.

It’s fair to say that big-name evangelicals who support Bush have not made noise over the torture issue, but the lack of noise does not necessarily indicate support for the policy. According to numbers compiled by The Economist, 60 percent of Bush’s voters in 2004 were among theological conservatives, which includes evangelicals, traditional Catholics and, yes, Mormons. Where do these voters fall on the torture issue?

Will Romney pick up Bush’s “theoconservative” supporters or will he end up alienating them? We know that McCain’s position on torture is not endearing him to high-level Bush supporters, but what about the people in the pews? Will this stymie his efforts to gain the support of evangelicals because he is opposing Bush, or opposing a policy they may or may not consider critical to their safety or harmful to the country’s moral foundation?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Evangelicals, Journalism, Politics, Religion, Social Issues
  • http://www.geocities.com/hohjohn John L. Hoh, Jr.

    While one’s beliefs and faith and practice may tint one’s politics, must they be follow lock-step in all matters political? Some examples from Scripture:

    1. God does not condone divorce. I suspect Moses did not condone it, either. Yet provisions were made for divorce in the Mosaic Law. Why? Well, Jesus told the Pharisees of his day that divorce was allowed because of the “hardness of people’s hearts.” A politician of faith not only knows what God’s will is, but always recognizes that the society at large may not know God’s will or, if it does, cares not to follow God’s will. The rules for divorce in the OT were to protect the innocent from the folly of the guilty. Sometimes a politician of faith needs to pass legislation that seemingly encourages illicit behavior in order to protect the innocent who are harmed by the misdeeds of others.

    2. The Roman government was not only an evil government and tyrannical, it was a pagan government that saw the emperor as a god. Yet St. Paul speaks of obeying that same government (apart from acknowledging Caesar as god) as God pleasing. Why? The government is an agent of God. And remember, this same government would also take Paul’s life!

    But, yes, it would be interesting to know where the Mormon church stands on issues. Or are they, like the Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod, of a mind that politics is not a realm of the church and each member needs to make his/her own informed choice and craft informed opinions?

  • http://www.christianitytoday.com/ctmag/ Ted Olsen

    You’re right, of course, to say “big-name evangelicals who support Bush have not made noise over the torture issue.” That’s not to say that there isn’t noise in the evangelical community. There’s the recent CT cover story and other articles we’ve published.

    But on “the other side,” you have Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition telling the LA Times that McCain’s anti-torture stand “very definitely is going to put a chilling effect on the tremendous strides he has made in the conservative evangelical community.”

    Sheldon is more known for accusations of lying and bribery than for being a real player. In fact, he himself has admitted that he doesn’t have much political power. But there the quote is in the Los Angeles Times anyway, so I guess it deserves a a reponse. My take: McCain will gain at least as many evangelicals on this issue as he’d lose on it.

  • Ben Turner

    I am a practicing Latter-day Saint who read this article so I thought I’d give my two-cents.

    I’ve been participated in this church my entire life, and I have served a mission for the Church. As far as I know, my church has no official policy on torture.

    A wide-range of political beliefs can be found within my Church. For example, I am a loyal Republican while the Bishop of my congregation is an avid Democrat with bumper-stickers to prove it! (For example, Harry Reid is a Latter-day Saint and so is Orrin Hatch–very different views.)

    The Book of Mormon and Doctrine of Covenants (books that we study in addition to the Bible) never discuss torture.

    Basically, I think this issue will be an issue considered outside religion.

    The main political issues my Church has gotten involved with are:
    1) state sponsered gambling (they opposed it in Utah.)
    2) state sponsered homosexuality (they oppose legalization of “gay marriage.”)

    Other than this, the Church seems very hands-of when it comes to politics.

    It is sometimes a mystery to me how so many views can be had by people in my religion–given its very traditional value system–but I think it stems from the idea that our teachings can be said to support the idea of a libertarian style government that allows people freedom to make choices, even if they are bad choices.

    It is true that generally Mormons don’t like the government encouraging everyday citizens to make bad choices, but that is probably the extent the Church gets involved. I am not aware of a time that it got involved in national security or internatioal politics.

    Back to the torture issue, I don’t think my Church will take an issue one way or the other.

  • Nathan

    As a member of the LDS Church, I agree with Ben that the Church has no doctrine – at least that is taught over the pulpit or discussed among the members – regarding torture. Some other insights may give you an idea where many LDS come from on this issues, however.

    # – we believe all men are children of God and were born with the Light of Christ in them. So even those terrorists and others who hate us enough to kill us all are our brothers and sisters and are not beyond the bounds of God’s love or the opportunity to partake of his atonement.

    # – there is one mention of the word “torture” in the Book of Mormon, and it is speaking of a horrible group of people who, to the members of God’s church, “did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.” -Moroni 9:10

    I think the key here was the motivation for this. Obviously it was to inflict pain for the sake of hate and pain, and to kill. I don’t feel that our soliders are “torturing” for the same reason. They do it to get information, and stop when the information is given. They are then given medical care, they are kept alive, and are treated much better than we could expect our own people to be treated by terrorists (televised beheadings, bodies that have been torn to bits and left on the sides of roads, etc.)

    # – The Book of Mormon does teach us that there are evil people in this world who will not hesitate to do harm to others. In many of those cases, God has not hesitated at times to have those evil people rid from the earth. The prophet Nephi was commanded to kill Laban, a high ranking official in Jerusalem, because his actions were thwarting God’s plan. His statement on the matter, in convincing Nephi that it was his will:
    “Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief”
    This is not to say a) that the war against terror qualifies as one of the Lord’s “righteous purposes”, though I would say that God is probably not overjoyed with the actions of terrorists, or b) that we should kill everyone who we think is a terrorist. I think the armed forces, CIA, etc. have done, from what I can see, what was needed to get information and nothing more. And they did it to prevent these people from killing more innocent people. It is better that one evil man should suffer than a nation be destroyed. My personal opinion is that God does not want the innocent to suffer, and therefore – well, I am not going to pretend to speak for God. But I think that demonstrates a little of some LDS doctrine that might influence some member’s thoughts on the issue.

  • marK

    It is a shame that the word “torture” has been so defined down that it is getting to the point that if you do any more than provide three squares and a bed, you are commiting a crime against humanity. Throwing that word around to describe aggressive interrogation dumbs it down in the same way that describing your political opponents as “Nazis” and “Fascists” cheapens the terms. When I see someone whine and complain about Bush being a “tyrant”, I think to myself that they need to go live in a country ruled by a true tyrant for a while. The same thing happens whenever someone in the U.S. complains when someone criticizes what they say by invoking the dreaded word, “censorship”. I just shake my head, and hope that they never have to live under true censorship.

    I think that before you can expect the LDS church, or any church for that matter, to make a meaningful statement concerning torture, you must first meaningfully define what torture is. Vague notions of making the prisoner uncomfortable in order to secure information from him is not going to do it. Just the act of holding him causes him discomfort. Are we going to get to the point that we refuse to hold a prisoner because he might not like it?

    The LDS church teaches that we should agressively defend our rights, our families, our freedoms, and our religion. We teach our members to obey the law of the land and to be good citizens. If the law says “go to war, fight, and try to kill the enemy”, we do it with the church’s blessing. This can cause situations when good church members are shooting at each other, but the sin be upon the heads of the leaders, not the soldiers.

    We are taught to be Christ-like in all our actions. Christ is called, “The Prince of Peace”, yet he twice drove the moneychangers from the temple with a whip. He metaphorically taught that he came with a sword, to set children against their parents, and that it would be better for a child abuser to be dropped into the ocean with a millstone around their neck.

    Ouch!

  • Martha

    Well, I see the discussion on here re: the Mormon Church’s position on torture is going down the same road as the discussions re: the Catholic Church’s position on torture.

    I have no intention of getting stuck in this morass again. If anyone really wants to see the mud flinging, they can check out Mark Shea’s “Catholic and Enjoying It” blog and see how the same arguments are employed:
    1) We don’t use torture.
    2)What *is* torture, anyway? Oh, we have to tuck the terrorist in with a teddy bear or else it’s ‘torture’, boo-hoo!
    3) Even if we do use ‘torture’, we only use it for a good cause.
    4) You bleeding heart liberals don’t realise that we’re living in the real world, and that tough decisions have to be made!

    Catholic Church position? The Catholic Catechism states: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity” (2297).

    You don’t like it, take it up with the Pope!

  • Copedi

    I am also an active LDS member, and I’d pretty much agree with the assessment of Ben and Nathan. I think it’s safe to say that the church is opposed to war in a general sense (isn’t everybody?) but also believes that it is justifiable under some circumstances (primarily for self-defense). While the church teaches that we should seek to be at peace with all people (like St. Paul said), there’s not much official detail beyond that. A church spokesman was quoted earlier this year as saying that the church “condemns inhumane treatment of any person under any circumstances.” But “inhumane” was not defined.

    As Ben said, within the church there’s a wide range of political belief, although it certainly does tilt Republican. I’m a fairly solid Democrat (although my views on gay rights and abortion are more centrist — not right-wing — than that of the most visible part of the party), and I know quite a few others who are as well. Church members are probably more politically conservative in Utah and southern Idaho than in other parts of the country, and outside the U.S. political views run the gamut.

    As to the question relating to church discipline, any action taken solely for a person’s political views seems extremely unlikely. People denied the church sacraments are generally those who have engaged in serious sin (such as adultery or child abuse) or who actively teach false doctrine and/or publicly denounce the church.

    As I understand it, a Catholic priest can deny the eucharist (what Mormons call the sacrament) to a church member on his own. In the LDS church, a church trial would be necessary first. I can’t imagine someone being denied the sacrament for pure political belief or even actions. The church seldom takes political positions, and when it does those positions aren’t “mandatory.” Sen. Reid, for example, disagreed with the Church’s position on a constitutional marriage amendment but (as far as I know) was never disciplined for doing so.

  • Roberto Rivera

    Well said, Martha. For the record. Lou Sheldon and his “traditional values coalition” has come out in favor of the president’s efforts to blur the line on, well, torture.

  • Michael

    It’s telling that CT hasn’t written a story in 8 month about torture, literally missing the entire current debate. That’s not CT’s fault, of course, because no one powerful within the Evangelical community (il.e. people on Karl Rove’s quick dial) has spoken out. It’s fine to consider Sheldon a side-show, but at least he’s taken a position. What about the rest of the Colorado Springs/Virginia axis of powerful Evangelicals? Any sermons at Saddleback?

  • Jim Toye

    Well done, Martha. The only thing I would add for those who question the definition of torture is that John McCain and Colin Powell are against it. I don’t think they are in favor of mollycoddling prisoners, just treating them humanely.

  • Charles Jordan

    I can’t think of an easier position to take for a Republican trying to get the party nominiation than backing the president “four square” Hell why stop there. maybe Romney should say he’s 1,000% ehind the president.

    Whatever it takes, right?

  • marK

    So it sounds like Mormon philosophy is similar to most other religions on this subject.

    Is this a surprise?

  • Rathje

    I’m a practicing Mormon. I lived my whole life in the LDS heartland. I read the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants dozens of times.

    I have no clue what my church’s position on “torture” is. I don’t think they really have a position aside from the universal injunction to follow Christ and be nice to people.

    For an extensive and heated discussion among Mormon believers on this very subject, check the blog, “By Common Consent” here:

    http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/09/godless-bush/

    It really must be emphasized that the LDS Church doesn’t typically chip-in on political debates. They’ve never endorsed a political candidate in my lifetime (nor have key church leaders publicly done so). Gay marriage and gambling were mentioned above. But I’d add one more unusual instance:

    Ronald Reagan’s MX Missle project was deep-sixed by a formal declaration from the First Presidency pf the Church calling for Utahns to vote against what one author called “painting a nuclear bullseye next to Temple Square.”

    It’s generally a very apolitical church. We were just fine with Chilean dictator Pinochet, for instance, as long as he continued to allow Mormon missionaries into the country. I’m sure the Church would look the other way if China allowed missionaries as well.

    Why?

    Well, I think it’s a classic case of having “bigger fish to fry.” Elder Dallin H. Oaks (current member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) once responded to a query of why the Church does not support many worthy social issues, or speak-out about them by basically saying that the Church must focus its efforts on providing humanity with those things that only the Church can provide.

    You can get AIDS relief from any number of sources. Lots of groups are trying to “save the whales.” You can find political action committees anywhere.

    But, according to Mormon doctrine, you can only get the true and authorized ordinances of God in one place:

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    That’s probably why the LDS Church is really big on geneology, temple building, proselytizing, and the personal morality issues of its members, but seems relatively uninterested in environmentalism, anti-war or pro-war demonstrations, politicians, human rights, and even abortion to some extent.

    Those are battles that other groups are fighting, and lay Mormons are encouraged to be active in them. But the Church feels institutionally obligated to focus its efforts where it counts most: Uniting humanity in the one true religion on the face of the earth. We Mormons feel we are the only people qualified to share THOSE ordinances.

  • Snarlax

    I must respectfully disagree with Rathje that the Church is indifferent to many of the social debates of our time, particularly human rights. I work with the United Way in Provo, and happen to know that there are many worthy causes being funded directly by the Church to help underrepresented folks in our midst, particularly (yes, even illegal) immigrants.

    Most of this is unkown for the laudatory reason that the Church does not publish the majority of its efforts in these areas. The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, so to speak. A classmate of mine works at the Church humanitarian adminstrative offices, and was seriously surprised to see the great amount of resources that are being invested into humanitarian projects, the vast majority of which never make the “Church News”.

    But Gordon B. Hinckley spoke about a part of what the Church has been doing recently in a short speech he gave at the National Press Club in 2000. He mentions the Perpetual Education Fund, which has far-reaching political and social implications, when you think about it, in the countries in which it is being used (this from a returned missionary who served in Costa Rica).

    http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,4044-1-3837,00.html

    This speaks nothing of the work being done by individual Church members, which is truly inspiring. Many NGO’s concerned with human rights have all or part-member administrative boards and laypeople as well. UNITUS, HELP international and many more were the brainchildren of members of the Church.

    More related to the subject of this tread, in the same press club appearance, after the speech, there was a Q&A, in which Pres. Hinckley actually answers the exact question that was posed, namely, to what extent is the Church involved in politics? So here’s the transcript to that:

    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,155008723,00.html

    That said, I understand where Rathje is coming from, and agree with the main idea of the comment, that is, that the Church’s primary responsibility is to address people’s spiritual needs, which are at least as important to people’s well-being as whatever else they may be doing.