Douthat's post is a classic example of the blogosphere's tendency to take a lame argument and make it even worse, by denying facts, then denying their significance, then admitting significance but changing the goalposts (Joseph Smith! The Syllabus of Errors!).

A simple test for Mr Douthat. Do you care whether your company's CEO is a mormon, or a muslim, or an observant catholic or jew or hindu? How about your surgeon? Your investment advisor? What about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? The presidency of MIT?

If not, then why do you care about the private confessional situation of an elected official?

Why on earth do we inject religious concerns into this one, and only this one, element of the public sphere? If Romney or anyone else makes policy arguments that seek to privilege his preferred religious authorities, then those arguments should be condemned by Douthat and the rest of the media. What Romney's private beliefs are concerning the afterlife or the soul are of no consequence to any citizen, any more than they were to any of his colleagues at or investors in Bain Capital when he ran their multi-billion dollar funds.

The injection of religiosity into the political sphere by national politicians is probably the most damaging aspect of Jimmy Carter's legacy. Maybe it's too late to get the horse back into the barn, but it's worth a major effort on the part of ordinary citizens and journalists. We could start by treating religious belief as nothing more than an intensely personal matter that has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with the making of public policy.

To be specific, I couldn't care less about whether Mike Huckabee or any pol has accepted JC as his personal savior. I care intensely, and will fight with every fiber of my being, any effort by Huckabee or any pol to introduce religious superstition into the public-school science curriculum.

How to overcome the cultural wars? Respect religion enough to excise it from the public sphere. Get us back to living in a secular republic, as we did for the first 200 years of our existence.

I factor in a candidate's religious beliefs when deciding who to vote for, and I think doing so is reasonable.  For example, I'd be much less apt to vote for someone who worships Satan or believes that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.  I'm less apt to vote for someone who is a creationist.  I'm less apt to vote for someone who believes in animal or human sacrifice to the sun god.  People who believe those things tend to make less good decisions.  So I assume that would apply to elected representatives, as well.  

Also, I'm an atheist.  I don't know whether a candidate's being an atheist or agnostic would make me more apt to vote for the candidate.  Maybe a teeny bit.  Perhaps I tend to think that being atheist or agnostic makes one a tad more able to make good decisions.  But a candidate's being an atheist or agnostic doesn't matter that much to me.  Some atheists have been awful leaders, for example, Mao and Stalin.  And some religious people have been good leaders.  FDR was probably religious.  Gandhi was probably religious.  

1)  Since I believe that the government should not be an arm of any organized (or disorganized) religion, I do not vote for or against anyone based on their religious preferences or lack of religion.

2)  Jon all but suggests that there should be a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding a candidate's religion or lack thereof.  

3)  I'm awaiting Jon's briefs against voting for someone because she's a woman, because he or she is particularly attractive, because he or she meets a standard of desirability for manhood or womanhood, or because he or she just happens to look on good on TV and in other media outlets.  Voting is far more irrational than just the example of people voting for someone based on their confessed (no pun intended) religious preference.

4)  

I wrote: "Perhaps I tend to think that being atheist or agnostic makes one a tad more able to make good decisions."

After thinking about it more, I don't know about that.  I look at all the atheists and agnostics that have made bad decisions.  Maybe being atheist or agnostic doesn't help most atheists or agnostics make good decisions.  So maybe if a candidate were to say that he or she is an atheist or agnostic, it wouldn't make me more apt to vote for the candidate.  

If a candidate were to refuse to talk about his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof, that would probably make me slightly more apt to vote for the candidate.  However, a person's refusing to talk about his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof wouldn't matter that much in terms of who I vote for.  I'll weigh a lot more the candidate's health care plan, the candidate's experience, how good a job the candidate has done in political office, and the level of commitment the candidate expresses toward the United Nations and cooperation and diplomacy.    

David -- I'm like you. Show me the pudding, because that's where the proof is (I know that's a cliche saying, but hey..  Anyone can talk about whatever they think grants them some kind of legitimacy (e.g., religion, party affiliation, civic club membership, who their mom or dad was), but nothing matters more than seeing the product someone converting their values into policies.

dpackard-02 wrote: "Since I believe that the government should not be an arm of any organized (or disorganized) religion, I do not vote for or against anyone based on their religious preferences or lack of religion."

But what if a candidate favors animal sacrifice because he thinks that's what God wants?  In deciding who to vote for, I think one should weigh that against that candidate.  It's bad for the animals.  And people who believe that tend to be a little unstable.  I would worry about the decisions they would make in public office.  

That is not to say that you should totally rule the candidate out because of his or her favoring animal sacrifice because he thinks that's what God wants.  For example, what if the candidate he was running against was a member of the KKK?  

I wrote: "If a candidate were to refuse to talk about his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof, that would probably make me slightly more apt to vote for the candidate.  However, a person's refusing to talk about his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof wouldn't matter that much in terms of who I vote for.  I'll weigh a lot more the candidate's health care plan, the candidate's experience, how good a job the candidate has done in political office, and the level of commitment the candidate expresses toward the United Nations and cooperation and diplomacy. "

On second thought, if a candidate were to refuse to talk about his or her religion or lack thereof, it would weigh quite heavily in the candidate's favor in terms of who I vote for.  And this is partly because if a candidate took such a position and got a significant percentage of the vote, it might help make other candidates less apt to talk about their religion when they run for public office.  This would be good.  For one thing, the current ethos -- of candidates trying to show how religious they are -- might make it harder for non-religious people to get elected to public office.  

Moreover, if a candidate were to publicly say that he is an atheist or agnostic, that would make me more apt to support the candidate, because maybe it would help people realize that atheists and agnostics can be good people and political leaders.  However, I would weigh other considerations much more.  For example, if, in the 1972 campaign, Richard Nixon had said that he was an agnostic, I still would have strongly supported George McGovern.

Legal religious discrimination is something that should be fought at all costs, but a complete separation of religion from politics is an impossible dream.  To the millions of people out there who truly and deeply believe thier beliefs, separating thier beliefs from politics is an impossibility.   The best we can hope for is an expanding tolerance of "acceptable" different beliefs.  Tep2 says we should go back to being a secular republic, but we never were.  Its easy to act like  a secular republic when the vast majority of people all agree on the basic points, i.e., JC, savior, etc. . .  

david -- if the candidate did not speak to his or her religious preferences, how would you know she is a Satanist or commits sacrificial rites with animals?

Ronald Reagan was about as irreligious as a guy could get, and Nancy Reagan had her own astrologer, yet somehow Republicans and Americans voted for him in droves.

As to me, I have this thing against balding, lispy New Yorkers and anyone whose name begins with Hillary. Does this make me a bigot?

No, Blackie, it makes you a Ron Paul supporter.

Feel the LOVE! Join the rEVOLution!

I don't think this is a particularly strong argument, though I disagree with Ross in certain points he makes in his post. Slippery-slope arguments are very easy to assert without giving any reason to suppose inevitable causality. People actually can make distinctions. Ross is right that the Catholicism of the 19th Century could not be divorced from politics without becoming something altogether different. And religion, taken seriously, will always inform people's ethical views--a perfectly fair basis for voters to make their decisions.

Beyond that, with Mormonism there is the issue that Joseph Smith is a proven fraud; personally, I would be deeply reluctant to vote for someone credulous enough to be a Mormon given that foundation, just as I would never vote for anyone who rejects the theory of evolution even though this is unlikely to affect policy. Truth is important in its own right.

tep -

you said (good God, I wish they still parsed for italics) -

"A simple test for Mr Douthat. Do you care whether your company's CEO is a mormon, or a muslim, or an observant catholic or jew or hindu? How about your surgeon? Your investment advisor? What about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? The presidency of MIT?

If not, then why do you care about the private confessional situation of an elected official?"

It doesn't matter to me if my heart surgeon is a Scientologist.  But it certainly would matter if my Joint Cheifs' Chairman were a Branch Davidian, no?  Or would you want a president of MIT who was a stout Creationist?  The reason I don't care about the religion of my surgeon or my postmaster is because they have only the barest influence over my life (yes, even the surgeon, in the long view).  The same is not true of the POTUS.  He will be influencing and even creating policies that may seriously affect me and my descendents for decades.

I know that you say that a candidate's religion does not matter as much as his platform, but would you really vote for a candidate whose platform radically conflicted with his stated religion?  I wouldn't.  Either 1) he's lying about his platform to get into office, or B) he's an idiot for continuing his affiliation with a religion whose tenets he obviously opposes.

I would be neither more nor less likely to vote for a Muslim, a Jew, a Mormon, or even an atheist president.  But I would definitely want to know up front what I was getting, and, for the reasons mentioned above, I would definitely want to know that a candidate's platform is compatible with his religion (or lack thereof) even if it did not directly spring from it.  That is why I consider a candidate's religion to be fair game in an election.

Thanks, skipper- I feel the same way.  Mormonism is pretty much a proven fraud- started by a conman, debunked in his lifetime, and, more to the point, debunked in what is still a relatively short time ago*.  People's faiths are intensely personal, as teppy said, but I think they do affect general outlook and some decision-making capabilities.  

Now, as tep pointed out, it didn't hurt Mitt at Bain.  I won't point out that Mormonism was started as a way to make money, as that is cheap and irrelevant (I still said it, though, because the connection made me smile), but I think there is a difference between making money and making decisions that affect life and death.  If we are to be a secular republic, something I deeply desire, it is important to talk about faith and how that faith will change the way a person acts.   If an atheist were to run for President, it would be important to know if he would say "fuck-all" about nuclear war because he doesn't believe in moral consequences, or if his atheism springs from humanism and would be less likely to do that.  Same with any faith.  I want to know what being a Mormon means to Romney, and how it colors his view of the world.  

You are right, tep, that we don't hold other people to the same standards, but I am fine with that.  No one else has the power of the POTUS.  Scrutinize them.   We live in dangerous times.  If someone can believe something that is so obviously and verifiably false I will think twice about him as President.  If he doesn't really believe it I am leery about letting such an obvious fraud into office.  Mormonism is important to the Mitt Romney story.

*Though I do think that all religions are bunkum and a bunch of superstious nonsense, I still think that to be a Mormon requires a special level of credulity.  Other ones at least have the grind of time to press faith into our subconscious; Mormonism can't even claim that.  

dhauck, sory- I just said the exact same thing you did, only worse.  

epackard-02 wrote: "david -- if the candidate did not speak to his or her religious preferences, how would you know she is a Satanist or commits sacrificial rites with animals?"

I might not know.  But what's your point?   If a person didn't say what her religion was, I would weigh that in favor of voting for them.  Of course, there is always a possibility that the person secretly is a Satanist.  But I'm going to take my chances.  For one, if they don't say what their religion is, that tends to speak well for the person.  Specifically my experience is that people who won't say often are good leaders and people.  Bill Bradley is an example.  But, also, if a candidate refuses to mention her religion, it might help get people to stop talking about their religion when they run for office.  

blackton wrote: "Ronald Reagan was about as irreligious as a guy could get, and Nancy Reagan had her own astrologer, yet somehow Republicans and Americans voted for him in droves."

I don't know what you mean by "irreligious."  It's true that Reagan didn't go to church much.  But he had a strong belief in God.  And he was skeptical of evolution; at least that is what he said publicly.

"As to me, I have this thing against balding, lispy New Yorkers and anyone whose name begins with Hillary. Does this make me a bigot?"

Whether it makes you a bigot or not, you shouldn't weigh against voting for a candidate that the candidate is a balding, lispy New Yorker.  And you shouldn't weigh against voting for a candidate that the candidate's name begins with Hillary.  Because they are features that do not make one less able to be a good elected leader.  In contrast, if a person believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old because the Bible says that, this should raise a red flag.  It suggests that the person isn't particularly well educated or has bad judgment.  Because the person would be in position to realize that the all credible scientists that are experts on the age of the earth claim for good reason (for example, radiometric dating) that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old.  

Check out this post from "The Political Animal" (Washington Monthly). The comments were hilarious.

MITT AND THE MUSLIMS....Via Democracy Arsenal, here's what Mitt Romney told Mansoor Ijaz recently about the possibility of appointing a Muslim to his cabinet:

   I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "...based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Hmmm. I thought Republicans were the ones opposed to identity politics and quotas? Let's just check their party platform and....let's see....aha, here it is: "Finally, because we are opposed to discrimination, we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender."

Sorry, my mistake. There's no mention of religious discrimination there, so I guess Mitt's on solid ground. Quotas for Muslims are OK.

What's really telling about this is that you can almost see the gears turning in his brain when he came up with this answer. Obviously he had to say "no," because he knows that the Republican base would go nuts over the idea of a Muslim in his cabinet. But he can't just say that, can he? So his Bain-trained analytic mind went searching for a plausible excuse and the first thing that popped out of the wetware was a numerical explanation: (a) minorities deserve cabinet positions in proportion to their population, (b) one cabinet position is 5% of all cabinet positions, (c) therefore only groups with at least 15 million members are "justified" in getting one, (d) Muslims aren't even close to that, so (e) no dice. However, since they do make up about 2% of the population, they certainly qualify for 2% of all the lower level positions.

Any Tammany Hall ward heeler would understand the logic, but even Silent Charlie understood that this kind of thing wouldn't fly at the presidential level, and that was nearly a century ago. Maybe Mitt should have stayed quiet too.

I don't care what religion a candidate was born into, but I would think twice about voting for anyone who *converted* (to any religion) for president.  In my experience religious conversion is an indicator of mental instability, and I wouldn't want a mentally-unstable person (as, for example, G.W, Bush) to have his finger on the nuclear button.

whoa nancy, that is harsh, liberal Catholics become Chuch of England types because they don't want to be cafeteria Catholics instead finding mainline Protestant positions more to their liking. Likewise conservative Protestants overcome their previous bigotry to Catholicism and find the church's teaching more compatible to their own beliefs.

Beyond that, I have known atheists born and raised in China who found a need for spiritual meaning and have become religious later in life. I think labeling people mentally unstable is way too harsh.

Aha!  I always suspected my wife was a nutter (she married me, didn't she?).  Now I can prove it, because she converted to Catholicism when we married.  I'll go call the asylum right now...

Aha!  I always suspected my wife was a nutter (she married me, didn't she?).  Now I can prove it, because she converted to Catholicism when we married.  I'll go call the asylum right now...

and now I'm double-posting.  See?  It's rubbing off on me!

Where is this illustration from?

That Romney quote on Muslims in the Cabinet is rather telling, isn't it?

Mormons are, what, 3% of the population? I'm not sure that qualifies them for representation in government at the level of one in 44 presidents.

kbecker - it's a sketch of the famous Defenestration of Prague from the religious wars of the early 17c.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Defenestrations_of_Prague

This is an American bog, dammit. We should use this illustration showing an early 19c yankee and a farmer throttling each other (courtesy of my favorite oddball politics site, Rantburg: http://rantburg.com/

I know it's been said, and probably better than I can do it, but I cast my vote in favor of considering whether a potential presidential candidate truly believes that the Earth is a mere 6000 years old. I think this patently disqualifies him/her to lead us down the secular path safely. I would also apply that standard to local school board elections, being from Georgia as I am (and a resident of now-infamous Cobb County, where there was a thwarted movement to label school science texts with a warning that evolution is "merely" a theory).