Romney's faith and private religion

Damon Linker has an article on Gov. Romney’s religion (“The Big Test:  Taking Religion Seriously”), and why we should worry about it, in the Jan. 1-15, 2007 issue of The

New

Republic

. 

Although I was quite underwhelmed, and put off, by Linker’s overheated and parricidal book, The Theocons, and think that his recent writing about things Catholic and relating to Pope Benedict XVI has missed the mark, I think, with respect to Romney's religion, he has a point.  (Though not, perhaps, the point he intends to make.)

Linker's argument, in a nutshell -- which is also spelled out in this on-line debate between him and Richard Lyman Bushman -- is that treating Mormonism and Gov. Romney's embrace of that faith with the seriousness they deserve requires us to take seriously, and worry about, the claim that Mormonism does not have the doctrinal and traditional resources capable of supporting and sustaining (what Linker believes is) the necessary wall between a Mormon political leader’s own "conscience” and “church policy.”

Now, I do not know if Linker is right, i.e., that Mormonism in fact lacks these resources.  My take on Linker's writing about Catholicism makes me skeptical about his claims with respect to Mormonism.  I note that Richard Lyman Bushman insists, in his online debate with Linker, that, in fact, “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.”

In any event -- I do think, though, that those of Linker's critics who are objecting to arguments like his on the ground that Romney's religion is "private" are also missing the boat.  As David Bell writes, in this post from "The Open University":

The modern notion of religion as a purely private matter demands a literal suspension of belief: the burden is on the believer to reject, or at least ignore, those elements of her faith that might lead her to violate the laws and norms of modern secular society.

In modern society, it is not at all "prejudice" to demand that politicians shoulder this burden.

Or, I would say, it is perfectly appropriate to expect a religious believer to explain that, and why, the claims and commitments entailed in her religious profession are superior, and more worthy, than the "laws and norms of modern secular society."  (There is no reason, that is, to rule out of court religiously grounded challenges -- which may or may not convince -- to modern secular society.)

Those, like Linker, who want to raise concerns about Romney's Mormonism have an obligation, of course, to do so fairly, to not traffick in stereotypes, and to get that Mormonism right.  (And, unfortunately, there are good reasons to doubt the abilities of the press and commentariat when it comes to "getting religion.")  They also, it seems to me, need to concede, and not lash out against, analogous expressions of concern about, say, the political import of other, non-Mormon politicians' professed religions, and even about the political import of a hypothetical candidate's professed commitment to, say, reductionist materialism.  Couldn't we worry about whether someone who looks at the world the way, say, Daniel Dennett does, might also be shaped by a tradition or worldview that lacks the real ability (see, e.g., Michael Perry's work) to support and sustain human-rights commitments?

A final, quick gripe about the Linker piece.  He writes – distinguishing concerns he thinks are justified with respect to Mormons from those that might be harbored about Jews or Catholics – that “[u]nder modern conditions, some religions [including “post-Vatican II” Catholics] have spawned liberal traditions that treat faith primarily as a repository of moral wisdom instead of as a source of absolute truth.”  But, of course, nothing done or said at the Second Vatican Council involved a reduction of the Christian faith to “a repository of moral wisdom,” nor does the view that Christ has revealed – and, indeed, is – “absolute truth” entail the view that the Church or the faith supply “absolute[ly] tru[e]” answers to policy and political questions.