Allow me to answer the question bothering everyone, “Would opposing Mitt Romney for President because he is Mormon be evil?” No. Opposing him because you don’t think he would look good in a Speedo isn’t evil either. As to the question of whether it is prudent, that is another issue altogether.
Culturally the election of Romney would probably not be all that significant. Admittedly the logic of “if you have to ask the question of whether xyz is an issue, then it is an issue” has some truth. The question being asked however is if belonging to the Mormon sect is still prohibitive to achieving higher office. Following the same logic, we would conjure that it was indeed prohibitive before, and therefore since the question is being asked it is not prohibitive. I think Romney’s own election as governor of Massachusetts is indicative of the veracity of the previous statement.
The secondary comparison naturally goes to John F. Kennedy. I don’t think it is the best comparison. For starters, Al Smith ran prior to Kennedy. We don’t have that precedent with Romney. Secondly, Kennedy’s Catholicism didn’t hurt him, but rather helped him in the northeast which the democrats had failed to carry in Eisenhower’s overwhelming victory. There were large Catholic concentrations in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. Mormons are obviously well represented in Utah and to a lesser degree in the surrounding states, but outside of Salt Lake City there are no major Mormon cities. From the cultural perspective this means that a Romney election isn’t a larger indication that we have ceased being a Christian nation, as many pejoratively had described the election of Kennedy. In point of fact, a Romney presidency would occur during a period where the Mormons have fallen from their peak growth phase.
The Mormon question that is the elephant in the room is whether Mormonism is considered a religion or a cult. I may indeed come in for criticism for stating that this is a question being asked in America. Even if one disagrees with a man’s religious choice, he can still respect him. No one has ever claimed he wouldn’t personally join a cult but respects a person’s choice to do so. (Well, there may be some libertarian out there who has said it, but it certainly isn’t a mainstream sentiment.) For those who consider the question – and many will not – I think the majority will come down on the side of Mormonism being a religion. There will be a sizable minority that consider Mormonism to be a cult, and they won’t vote for him. Romney’s challenge is to make sure that sizable minority has peaked.
I doubt the speech will help or hurt him. The potential is for it to hurt him, but all indications are that he isn’t going to use it as an evangelistic opportunity to expound on why Mormonism is for everyone. He appears to be shooting for the more achievable “Mormonism isn’t a threat to anyone.” He should be able to achieve this modest goal in part because the sentiment is true. Mormonism isn’t a threat to take over the country. This is not to say I lack awareness of the danger to souls Mormonism is. A Mormon president would simply not be the precursor to a Mormon State.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In