Mitt Romney: Religion in Politics

Religion is something that everyone chooses to believe or not to believe in. By not making a choice, you are inevitably making a choice. Because it affects all of us in some way or another, to what degree should religion influence politics and elections? This is an extremely wide and controversial topic, so I am going to try to condense it down to a few recent issues throughout several blog posts.

1. Mitt Romney and Mormonism

As many of you already know, Mitt Romney is running for the GOP presidential candidate in the 2012 elections. He was raised a Mormon, which is not resonating with a group people in America. Mormonism is not widespread throughout the U.S. at all, constituting a mere 1.7 percent of adults in America, and because of the lack of knowledge of Mormons America has difficulty understanding them through any other lens besides that of the people who practice polygamy. As seen in this picture, some people do not even connect Mormonism to Christianity:

So why are Americans so quick to judge? Personally, living in the Midwest, I have never met a Mormon, and if I have I wouldn't know it. The only preconceived notions I have of them are seeing reality shows on TV of men who have multiple wives.

The great majority Mormons do not practice polygamy, including Mitt Romney. As previous president of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley stated,

“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church.... If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”

It is important that we judge Romney based on his political views and aspirations as president, not on his religious principles or stereotypes we hold against his religion.

As can be seen from the map, Mormons constitute a small group in the U.S.— more than one would expect. They are the second fastest growing religion. While highly concentrated in Utah, Mormons have recently spread out. This speaks to the tolerance and more widespread amount of freedom in the U.S. There are currently 15 Mormons in Congress. So what makes Romney so different? Because he is a front runner in the election and has a serious chance of being elected, people feel the need to scritinize him more than other previous Mormons running for political office.

My issue with people being so critical of Romneys religion is that if we can have an African American president, a female secretary of state, what is so wrong with having a Mormon presidential candidate? Isn't America all about freedom and acceptance? If we can put aside our issues with race and gender, shouldn't we be able to do the same with religion?

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/mormon.gif

Is the world ready for Hillary Clinton's LGBT policy?

Hillary Clinton 12/6/11 in Geneva giving a speech on Human Rights Day




Two days ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared in front of the United Nations that discrimination against people because of their sexuality is a violation of their human rights, and that the United States will now have a "Global Equity Fund" aimed at helping human rights groups fight prejudice against this minority. I first read about this event in an article by James M. Lindsay in the Global Public Square blog, and he cited some interesting points by Republican Candidate Rick Perry on Clinton’s latest policy:

“Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money. But there is a troubling trend here beyond the national security nonsense inherent in this silly idea. This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong.”

Perry raises some valid points, and a few questions come to mind:

1. Is it America’s duty or place to try to promote its own values in other countries?
2. How will Americans react to this policy? Will it be well received because it coincides with our values about equality and freedom of expression, or will the conservatives balk and complain?
3. How will other countries perceive this?
4. And finally, however they decide to promote LGBT rights, will it be successful? What defines success in this realm, and how can one measure it?

Although America’s acceptance and tolerance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people has generally increased, this same feeling is not true around the world. I can understand where Clinton is coming from; her intentions are good at heart. The policy they have laid out appears to be substantial and well thought out. But looking at this issue from the inside out, many countries are simply not ready to take the step towards acceptance, and American intervention is not going to make the process go any smoother.