by David A. Bell

Thanks to Jacob for the link to the Russell Arben Fox blog. It's very interesting, as is the debate between Damon Linker and Richard Lyman Bushman over at the TNR mother ship. One thing missing from all this discussion of religion and politics has been the increasingly evangelical character of American politics over the past generation. The key president here is not the impeccably secular John Kennedy, but rather Jimmy Carter, who presented his faith as central to his personal identity in a way that few presidents had done before him. In the wake of Carter's presidency, and the rise of the evangelical Right, religion has come to the center of American politics, and, as such, deserves to be taken seriously, and questioned seriously. Richard Lyman Bushman gives a good example of not taking it seriously enough when, in his exchange with Linker, he uses the notion of freedom of conscience as a rhetorical trump card against any questioning of Romney's Mormonism ( e.g. "Mitt Romney's insistence that he will follow his own conscience rather than church dictates is not only a personal view; it is church policy.") Such statements beg a rather crucial question: namely, the nature of the "conscience" itself. Just what were the formative influences on Mitt Romney's conscience? If you asked him, he would probably say "my faith." To which the next question should be: all right then, in what ways? Just how has your faith formed your conscience? If Romney wants to be president, then this is a question of legitimate public interest. As I wrote here a few days ago, questioning Romney's Mormonism does not mean assuming he is a fanatic who will turn the Oval Office into a branch office of the Mormon Temple. It means posing entirely legitimate questions about how his faith informs his conscience and his politics (Harry Reid, incidentally, should be asked the same questions). As a little thought experiment, imagine if an avowed atheist ran for president. Her lack of faith would certainly be questioned and criticized. Journalists would ask her, without compunction: "How can you run for President without believing in God?" No one is going to ask Mitt Romney: "How can you run for President and believe in the Book of Mormon?" But why would this be any less legitimate a question?