Mitt, Mormons, and the religious test that wasn’t

By CHARLES C. HAYNES   Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012
ADVERTISEMENT
 

— Buried in the mountain of demographic data preoccupying political pundits this week is one historic statistic that may have far-reaching consequences for religious freedom in America:

Seventy-nine percent of white Protestant evangelicals voted for Mitt Romney, a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—popularly known as the Mormon Church.

After a bitter Republican primary season during which many evangelical leaders supported the “anybody but Romney” effort, prominent conservative Christian ministers lined up behind Romney for the general election. A defining moment came Oct. 11 when America’s Preacher, the Rev. Billy Graham, publicly signaled support for Romney’s candidacy.

One week after Graham’s embrace of Romney, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed from its website the reference to the Mormon Church as a “cult”—a small change in language that could have a big impact on future relations between evangelicals and Mormons.

It’s very likely, of course, that conservative Protestant acceptance of Romney was largely a political marriage of convenience. Evangelical positions on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage trumped misgivings about putting a Mormon in the White House.

But however pragmatic the reasons, strong evangelical support for Romney was an unprecedented break from the long history of anti-Mormon sentiment among Protestants that dates to the founding of the Mormon faith in the 19th century.

Theological differences will no doubt continue to spark robust debates between evangelicals and Mormons. But Romney’s run for the presidency appears to have shifted the tone of the disagreements, promising perhaps to usher in a new era of more-civil dialogue and—when public policy interests overlap—more common cause.

Like John Kennedy’s historic breakthrough as the first Roman Catholic to win the presidency, Romney’s candidacy signals another turning point in the long struggle to move beyond voter-applied religious tests for office. Although Romney fell short of winning a majority, his big numbers among evangelicals demonstrates that being identified as a Mormon is no impediment in a presidential race.

Beyond the Mormon question, is it possible that religious affiliation more broadly—for much of our history a litmus test for major party nominees—is becoming a non-issue in American presidential politics?

Consider, for example, that in 2012 no white Protestant was on either party’s ticket for the first time in our history. The response of voters to this milestone appears to have been a big shrug.

But despite the apparent indifference to the religious affiliation of this year’s candidates, voter surveys suggest that religion still matters in the voting booth. The range of “acceptable” affiliations may have expanded in recent elections, but the country is nowhere close to the day when either major party will nominate an avowed atheist for the presidency or vice presidency. Polls also suggest that candidates from many minority faiths, especially Muslims, would not fare well on the national stage.

Nevertheless, the demographic handwriting is on the electoral wall in an increasingly pluralistic America. Protestants are no longer in the majority for the first time in our history. And leadership of key institutions—long dominated by Protestants—is now religiously diverse. (The current U.S. Supreme Court, for example, has six Roman Catholic and three Jewish justices.)

The fact that Romney’s religious affiliation played virtually no role in this election is another step—a significant step—toward the day when candidates for high office are judged primarily by their record and character, not by the place of worship they attend (or don’t attend).

We still have a distance to go. But with Mitt Romney’s candidacy in 2012, we moved closer to the First Amendment promise of full religious freedom—a level playing field in the public square for citizens of all faiths and none.

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001. Web: firstamendmentcenter.org. Email: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

reader COMMENTS
Click here to view reader comments
(11)
RetiredAirForce
Nov 19, 2012 at 4:09 a.m.
Suggest removal

As with most left wing views, mormonism only became a problem when a person from the other political party was part of it. These same non-conviction having folks remain silent on the leader of the US senate, democrat harry reid, who is also a mormon.

Badgerlvr
Nov 18, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal

donna: Not a bad comment from a high school dropout!

donnaw
Nov 18, 2012 at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal

Badger....and time for you to crawl back under your rock! The daylight will hurt your eyes!

Badgerlvr
Nov 18, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal

donna: Time for you to go back to the front-room window, sit in your rocker, and pick up your binoculars.

donnaw
Nov 18, 2012 at 6:27 a.m.
Suggest removal

NV. We keep waiting for you to crawl back into the dessert but you keep disappointing us. Isn't there a sandstorm you could monitor?

NVgrf
Nov 17, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal

Is this guy still in the news? I would have thought that he would have crawled back into his 53% cacoon by now.

prounion
Nov 16, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal

Romney lost - but he was prayed for more than Obama - interesting.

garyprimer
Nov 16, 2012 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal

Why don't you just go back to stalking Walker?

wislady
Nov 16, 2012 at 7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal

dtb
Obviously, since Obama is in the WH, your statement is false.

garyprimer
Nov 15, 2012 at 9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal

Even for Catholics.

dtb
Nov 15, 2012 at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal

Being a Mormon may or may not be an impediment to reaching the Oval Office but being a pathological liar is.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT