Religious prejudices and presidential politics

July 3, 2006

It’s frustrating to see evidence that [tag]religious[/tag] [tag]prejudices[/tag] linger in such large numbers. The traditional [tag]bigotry[/tag] is fading — but has been replaced with newer animus towards other minority [tag]faiths[/tag].

Most traditional barriers to religion in presidential elections have toppled, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found. In particular, the survey released today shows that [tag]anti-Semitism[/tag] and [tag]anti-Catholicism[/tag] are fading among voters.

But uneasiness about some religions persists. Thirty-seven percent of those questioned said they would not vote for a [tag]Mormon[/tag] presidential candidate, and 54% said no to the prospect of a Muslim in the White House.

In all, 21% said they would not vote for an [tag]evangelical[/tag] Christian, 15% said no to a Jewish presidential candidate, and 10% said they wouldn’t back a Catholic candidate.

The ill will towards Mormons is of particular interest now in light of Massachusetts Gov. [tag]Mitt Romney[/tag]’s likely campaign. It’s going to be an issue — as Amy Sullivan recently explained, the GOP’s religious-right base tends to look at Mormanism as “a [tag]cult[/tag].” (The Constitution insists there can be no “religious test of public office,” but there’s nothing stopping Republican primary voters from imposing one of their own.)

Then again, to see the most intense theological fireworks, imagine the reaction if a [tag]non-believer[/tag] ever ran for president. According to one recent study, [tag]atheist[/tag]s are the only ones to finish worse than Muslims, gays, and immigrants among the general public.

I’m afraid it’s only possible on the West Wing TV show for a non-believer to make traction in presidential politics, at least for the forseeable future.

There go my plans for a Gay-Iranian-Athiest third party movement. Damn!

  • I think the Mormons are getting a lot of negative publicity because of the random TV documentaries about polygamy, and the recent addition of a polygamist from Mormon country to the ten most wanted list. I haven’t known a lot of Mormons except for a friend who was put out of the church because she refused to tythe her life insurance and widows pension after she was left with three small children to raise on her own. Because of that particular trauma, I have my own predjudices that extends to any organized religion which is that organized. Any group making such draconian demands on its followers worries me.

  • I find it interesting that the lowest rejection numbers are for Roman Catholics (being one myself). It’s particularly interesting that we do better than Evangelicals. Of course, that’s not the same people’s prejudices. And lots of these people are lying to the pollsters, believing that you just can’t say that (even to yourself). Though it is kind of nice that the Christian Fundementalists have torqued off that big a slice of the American electorate.

    As for the Mormons, I think it’s Mitt Romney’s responsibility to sell them and himself as ‘acceptable’ and Christian. As a fan of HBO’s ‘Big Love’, I have to say the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) and the polygamists both come off as rather creepy and very ‘holier than thou’. And having met a couple of LDS missionaries in person, the feelings not just based on a work of fiction.

    I suppose there is nothing the Theocratic Reactionaries of the Republican’t party hate more than someone holier than them 😉

    And as for the Muslims, they really don’t seem to be working the issue very hard, do they?

  • The Founding Fathers were mostly Deist (there may be a god but it doesn’t interfere in earthly affairs). Reagan didn’t do much more than pretend to be religious. Bush is an embarrassment of religiosity.

    I like Matthew 6:5-6 – “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” Even better, our First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    Religious freedom means just that. Freedom. I don’t see why I have to agree with anyone’s mumbo-jumbo religious beliefs, cooked up at a time when most authorities also believed in male dominance, inherited kingship, slavery, witchcraft, magic and prayer. Others are, of course, free to hold them, I’m free to fold them in favor of more demonstrable beliefs. They’re free to rely on pie in the sky by and by; I’ll search for pragmatic solutions in the here and now. I look forward to the day when Democrats return to Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt and disconnect the business of governing from ALL superstition.

  • What, no mention of Wiccans or Zoroastrists? Mithraists?

    The suppression of pagans is just unbelievable in this country.

  • I suppose many people are afraid that odd religions might show that the candidate is “odd,” and to most people “not odd” is some form of Protestantism. Catholics might pass muster. Pagans, Wiccans, atheists, Muslims, Jews, and others are too odd; after all, they don’t celebrate Christmas and Easter, do they? And those two holidays are religiously defining in this country, in a peculiarly American sort of way.

    Mormons are odd because of their general science fiction type of religion, which means that Scientologists are too.

    In the land of individualism and freedom of thought, you can’t think too freely or be too individual.

    (Glittering generalities allowed in this post).

  • “Mormons are odd because of their general science fiction type of religion, which means that Scientologists are too.” – Carol

    Carol, there ain’t no ‘science’ in the fiction that is Mormonism. If anything, it’s a ‘great American novel’ kind of fiction.

    Scientology, now there is a ‘science fiction’ kind of religion! But it’s certainly not because of the oddity of the Mormons.

    “In the land of individualism and freedom of thought, you can’t think too freely or be too individual.” – Carol

    Sadly, a nice ideal which we don’t even strive to obtain in this country anymore. Our culture desperately wants conformity to acceptable norms. Fortunately, our ‘culture’ is also a fiction, and is more fractionalized today than at any time in the past. But most indivduals ‘individuality’ actually conforms to some existing cultural framework. True originals are rare as they are either crushed or embraced, making them no longer original.

  • 2Manchu, I’m afraid the vast majority of Americans would think Zoroaster was a fictional Spanish-Californian folk hero who looks a lot like Antonio Banderas.

    I’m sure a good and true Pastafarian would be welcomed with open arms by the electorate, though. 😉

  • As someone who grew up around Mormons in the west, I am sorry, but there is no way in hell I would vote for one of them for dogcatcher if they were the only one running. That church truly is a theocracy in all the wost possible meanings of that word, and all the old Protestant fears from back when Kennedy was running, that he would take orders from the Pope, would not be “fears” when it comes to a member of this church – they are required as a matter of faith to take those orders on pains of being excommunicated. That is why I cannot vote for them.

    As far as Scientologists are concerned, I have a bias against voting for obvious halfwits and morons. ‘Nuff said.

  • Anyone who is familiar with the amazing nonesense that Mormons believe would be justified in not voting for one. Of course, that could be said of any religion, since they are all based on superstitious fantasies. The more religious a person is, the less I trust them.

  • I agree with #11.

    The more I hear someone being described as a good “Whatever” religion, I always get the view that the more they say it, the bigger the asshole they are. Most of the time, I’m right.

    I think the Mormon love has a lot to do with their “outreach” usually done at the worst possible time for most folks (Sat Morning for instance.)

    A little off topic, but a housemate of mine in university stopped the Sat morning knocks by wearing nothing but a bathrobe. He answered the door in an open bathrobe while scratching himself and holding a bottle of beer in the other hand. Needless to say, the two Mormons fled the scene and my housemates and I enjoyed no early morning wakeups for the rest of the year…

  • Curmudgeon……I agree…A Pastafarian would be the perfect president… I would even vote for one…Although a Pagan would would be my first choice.
    I told someone I was a Pagan once and she was shocked…until she looked it up in the dictionary…and found that it wasn’t so bad after all. I guess though I am not a really committed Pagan…I never get to church!

  • I would have qualms about voting for a Mormon simply because a large majority of Mormons are arch-conservatives. Why would I, a liberal, want to vote for someone who’s likely to be an arch-conservative? Harry Reid is the exception to the rule, and I’d have no problem voting for someone like Reid, who’s proved his center-left credentials. But conditional preferences like mine (“I’d vote for a Mormon only IF he were a liberal”) aren’t easily captured by these kinds of poll question, so my reply would probably just be boiled down by the pollster to “I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon.”

  • Dan (#12),

    My wife was visited by a pair of Mormons once. She said “Come on in. I’d love to talk you. I wrote a research paper about you people when I was in college.” (She do a Master’s thesis on 19th century utopian communities in America.) They went away, and we’ve never had Mormons since then. I don’t know if they leave a secret mark on your door or what.

    As to your housemate’s bathrobe-‘n’-beer trick, he better watch it. I know it’s hard to believe but according to the excellent movie Latter Days some of those Mormons might be gay. They might pull his bathrobe off. They might … have fun.

  • Maybe they mark the house 666 with invisible ink?

    I don’t remember if they were male and/or female. One thing I do remember is that we didn’t get any remember any lustful male visitors or female ones for that matter-a house of geeky engineers isn’t exactly the Playboy Mansion.

    I never asked if they gawked or were disappointed.

    Personally, I don’t think I have the, uh chuztpah do something like that…

  • This has been an entertaining read!

    As far as being an “unbeliever” goes, I’m not so sure that the “believers” in office truly are such, except in name only. They know the code of “walking the walk/talking the talk” but don’t seem to actually apply it to their lives in any meaningful way. I’m sure I don’t need to name any names, right??

  • I’m not sure I would call these preferences “religious prejudice”. A religion is a voluntary acceptance of a set of beliefs. Rejecting people with those beliefs makes sense.

  • I’m a non-believer. I think religion has no place in government, and our current problems are a direct argument as to why. If the “religious” politician is sincere, and feels he is “other directed,” then he’s a dangerous fool. If he isn’t sincere, then he’s simply dishonest and a liar. Neither should be put in positions of power.

  • I doubt very much I would ever vote for a right-wing Christian, but that’s about politics, not religion. I abhor everything that group supports. I probably would not vote for a Mormon for the same reasons. That makes me a liberal, not a bigot.

  • Harry Reid is a Mormon, if you didn’t know. It hasn’t really affected his career much.

  • Well, now we know why Mormons follow their more liberal impulses — they are even more despised by the left than the so-called Christians on the right.

    As a liberal Mormon, I’ve long thought Mormon culture has long suffered under an inferiority complex that makes the rank and file a sucker for even an ounce of acceptance from those in power. The current truce, one that right wing fundamentalist Christians (RFCs) base on an “enemy of my enemy” ethos, just like they’ve done with conservative Jews, is one of convenience. The moment the RFCs can hold power without Mormons and Jews, they will. And they’ll more freely talk about how they look forward to both groups being fried to a crisp before the 2nd coming. Nutty I know, but there you have it.

    Romney is the subtext here of course and it’s obvious he just doesn’t get it; he’s just the latest example of an ambitious Mormon letting his so-called status on the right go to his head. But Mormons like him (and sadly most are) are useful idiots, oddly similar to Log Cabin Republicans. Both are in an alliance with groups that wish for their extermination in one fashion or another; both seem willfuly blind to that fact.

    As for the bigotry from the left towards Mormons on display in this thread, you ought to get over it. We’re here, and we’ll be around for awhile. Might as well figure out how to welcome us into the big tent, especially since the growing number of liberal Mormons trying to change things from within could use a helping hand from at least the more tolerant liberals.

  • I’m not sure it’s bigotry to be worried by a candidate’s religious identification when the church concerned is hierarchical and reactionary.

    I would look closely at a Catholic or Mormon candidate, or at any candidate affiliated with a denomination described as “orthodox” or “fundamentalist,” to assure myself of his or her independence.

    There really are churches that tell their adherents what to do, and are strict as to enforcement. I wouldn’t care to elect a member of such a church as President, unless I knew s/he would, like JFK, make decisions freely and without reference to any Pope or high holy.

  • So what Wren (#19) believes is that no person with any religious beliefs ought be allowed entrance into the political sphere (including voting), since they are all “dangerous fools.” This seems directly contrary to the documents and intents of the leaders that birthed our nation. Perhaps we ought to review the record of the great atheists of history, and what their “enlightened” use of power did for us.

    I do agree with your point, however, that if they are just putting on a religious face to try to get votes, religious people voting for them is worse than voting for an atheist, since not only is their “faith” in question, so is their character (which is much worse, esp. for a leader).

    • Comments are closed.