A Mormon for President?
Sermon, March 23, 2007
Rabbi Bruce Kadden

In 1960 the question was:  Can a Catholic be President?  In 2000 the question was:  Can a Jew be Vice President?  And in 2008, with the candidacy of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the question is:  Can a Mormon be President?

Now, for some, these are ridiculous questions.  Of course a Catholic, Jew or Mormon can be President or Vice President.  A person’s religion should not make a difference.  We should not vote against or even for a candidate simply because he or she is of a particular religion.  But I would like to suggest that we not dismiss these questions quite so quickly, because they reflect the legitimate concern of the relationship between a person’s religious faith and his or her political convictions. 

The relationship between politics and religion is a complex one in our country.  The first amendment to the constitution prevents Congress from establishing a state religion or prohibiting Americans from practicing their religious faith and traditions.  The State cannot be, in any way, a coercive force with regard to religious practice.  And although there have been challenges to these principles in recent years, the Supreme Court has, for the most part, upheld the separation of Church and State.

But religious individuals and groups can and do attempt to influence the political system by applying religious principles and teachings to the issues of the day.  Religious organizations, like any other group, may lobby Congress to promote their agendas.  Indeed, the Religious Action Center does just that on behalf of Reform Judaism, applying Jewish teachings endorsed by the Reform movement to contemporary matters. 

And although we are sometimes fearful of the agenda of the religious right and of their power to realize that agenda, we accept their right to apply their religious convictions to the political process.  And, we expect that a politician’s religious convictions will influence, at least to some extent, his or her political positions.

On the surface, opposition to a candidate who happens to be Catholic or Jewish or Mormon appears to be outright prejudice.  And, indeed, many of those who oppose such candidates do so because of bigotry.  But for some, it is not a matter of prejudice, but of a legitimate concern about whether a candidate’s religious convictions will unduly influence his or her political positions.  For some it is a question of dual loyalty. 

John F. Kennedy was able to assuage such fears by making it clear that he did not take his marching orders from the Vatican.  Joseph Lieberman also succeeded in demonstrating that although he was a serious, practicing, Orthodox Jew, he could still do his job as Senator and would have been able to serve as Vice President. 

On the surface it would seem that Mitt Romney would also be able to overcome concerns about his being a Mormon.  As Governor of Massachusetts, he signed a bill permitting Sunday alcohol sales, though the Mormon Church opposes drinking alcohol.  He also signed a bill expanding the state lottery, though gambling is also forbidden.  This should indicate that Romney is able to put aside his personal religious convictions in at least some political matters.  

However the conservative columnist Robert Novak has written that Mormonism is Romney’s “one great liability as a presidential candidate.”  Alex Beam, a Boston Globe columnist points out that 100 years ago Mormonism was the most hated religion in America.  The Mormon Church ended up based in Utah because its early followers wanted to escape religious persecution and prejudice.  And although much has changed in the last century, there remains much mystery surrounding the Mormon Church, as well as continued prejudice toward Mormons.  And opinion polls have found that some 35 percent of registered voters say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon for President, a much higher percentage than any other faith except for Islam.

In part, this figure may reflect the fact that Mormon beliefs and practices remain a mystery to many.  The church itself has contributed to the general unfamiliarity about Mormonism with its secrecy.  Although Romney’s candidacy will no doubt serve to publicize and clarify Mormon beliefs and practices (much as Lieberman’s served to do so with Orthodox Judaism), “it will only serve to remind evangelicals of the differences between the two religions,” according to Amy Sullivan, an editor of The Washington Monthly.

That very statement, calling them “two religions,” reflects a crucial aspect of the evangelical/Mormon divide, because while Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, most evangelicals do not consider Mormons to be Christians.  Indeed, there is much animosity among many evangelical Christians toward the Mormon Church.

Shortly after I arrived in Salinas in the 1980’s some Christians circulated a video which was highly critical of Mormonism and highly controversial.  And although there are certain Mormon teachings which do not seem to be compatible with Christianity, it became clear that the primary reason for Christian opposition to Mormonism was their success at proselytism. 

I have seen nothing to indicate that the attitude of evangelical Christians toward the Mormon Church has changed, which does not bode well for Romney.  Ironically, his positions, particularly on social and family issues, reflect those of many evangelical Christians, which is why Robert Novak considers his Mormonism to be a liability. 

Romney has been meeting with evangelical ministers and religious broadcasters, including Rev. Jerry Falwell and Rev. Franklin Graham, but it is doubtful that such meetings will overcome what are very deep suspicions and animosity toward Mormons among the evangelical Christian community.  Indeed, the Mormon Church remains a threat to evangelical Christianity, both theologically and practically and it is doubtful that anything Romney is able to say or do will overcome this situation.  If Romney’s candidacy fails, it will no doubt be due in great part because those who are most ideologically similar to him are not able to overcome their anti-Mormon sentiments.

So, while this country proved in 1960 that we were ready for a Catholic President, and indicated in 2000 –by willingness to support the candidacy of Joseph Lieberman-- that we are likely ready for a Jewish President, we still may not be ready for a Mormon President.  Although many Americans would rightly be willing to vote for a Mormon candidate, anti-Mormon sentiment, particularly among some evangelical Christians, would make it very difficult for Romney, or any other Mormon, to successfully run for President. 

[back to list of sermons]

[back to top]