There’s something deeply troubling the the political conversation surrounding Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. When politicans and pundits lament the fact that Romney’s faith is a campaign issue, they insult and trivialize religious faith on a much deeper level.

Consider how this Boston Globe article addresses the role of Romney’s Mormonism in the campaign.

[Warren County chairman for McCain’s presidential campaign, Chad] Workman questioned whether Mormons were Christians, discussed an article alleging that the Mormon Church helps fund Hamas, and likened the Mormons’ treatment of women to the Taliban’s, said participants, who requested anonymity to discuss the meeting freely.

One participant summed up Workman’s argument this way: “The fundamental flaw of Mitt Romney . . . was that he was Mormon, not because he thinks this way or that way on one issue.”

Emma Nemecek, an Iowa field operative for Senator Sam Brownback, ended an e-mail with a quote from Founding Father and Supreme Court Justice John Jay:

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Both McCain and Brownback apologized, as did other Republicans whose supporters criticized Romney. The article frames these statements as a kind of religious bigotry. But the real bigotry comes out in the supposed apologies.

McCain, in an interview Monday with Globe reporters and editors, said Romney’s faith should play no role in the campaign. “I think it’s a terrible thing, really, for us to judge someone on their religion,” he said.
. . .
“In some ways, [Romney’s candidacy] is the best test of whether Americans have really put some of the old religious differences aside,” said Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. “And my guess is that they haven’t.”

Although these statements appear to promote religious tolerance, they make an assumption that every sincerely religious person should find offensive. Hiding beneath the tolerance is the notion that religion is not to be taken seriously, that it can be tucked away in the corner of one’s mind and not interfere with the important issues, that religion exists only in the place of worship and in the home.

But the sincere religious individual sees literally everything through the lens of his faith. Judaism, at least, consistently emphasizes that all aspects of life, from the lofty to the mundane fall within the Torah’s purview. I’m commanded to see the world - every aspect of the world - from its perspective. Suggesting that religion is merely personal and thus, not related to public life implies that religious individuals don’t take their faith seriously. Because if they do, their faith permeates every decision they make.

In some sense, I’ve just validated what many pro-abortion rights advocates feared when the president appointed two devout Christians to the Supreme Court. That wasn’t my intention and I’ll elaborate on this point in a future post. One could make the argument that ideology shouldn’t matter in electing a public official or in appointing a judge. Perhaps it shouldn’t matter if, for example, the candidate is a feminist or a social darwinist. If he convinces you can he can perform his duties impartially and fairly, then by all means, disregard his other beliefs. My point is that if ideology does matter, if what a candidate believes is important, then it shouldn’t matter if we’re talking about gender or God.