Here’s Rick Santorum writing on Romney and religion back in 2007. The whole piece is worth a look, both for what it does say and what it does not.
In the following extract Santorum makes the (reasonable) point that a candidate’s religious affiliation is something that should not necessarily be off-limits:
[Romney] also said that “a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith.” His supporters say it is akin to rejecting Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.
He tried to address the questions by discussing Jesus, suggesting that the specific theological tenets of Mormonism are not in any important respect different from those of traditional Christianity. I disagree. However, voters should use extreme caution in factoring theological tenets into their assessment of a candidate’s qualifications, because theological tenets, as opposed to moral tenets of a religion, transcend reason – consider, for example, the virgin birth.
But, it is fair to look at a candidate’s faith from the standpoint of its moral teachings or, as Catholics say, its “social teaching.”
Romney hit on the correct voter question: “Does [the candidate] share these American values: the equality of humankind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?” He said “yes,” and provided some examples to bolster his answer. It was Romney’s best argument to Christian conservatives – we may not see God the same way, but we see our obligation to God’s people the same way.
It could have been even better had he acknowledged a fact that can’t help be true for a person of real faith – that the moral teachings of an individual’s faith will do more than shape his character, they will influence his decisions.
I came to not entirely dissimilar conclusions in a post on the Corner in October:
On the wider topic of whether a presidential candidate’s religious affiliations should be something that should be immune from comment and criticism, the answer is no. If a candidate insists that his or her God is central to who they are and what they believe, that’s a fair enough thing to say, but, under those circumstances, it’s no less fair for voters (or political rivals) to ask what that might mean for how that candidate might act as president, and, if they don’t like the answer, to say so or vote so.
But note Santorum’s comment about how “specific theological tenets of Mormonism” do differ in important respects from traditional Christianity. That’s clearly true, but then read what he goes on to say:
Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?
How does a candidate possibly address such concerns?
Assume for the sake of argument that there are valid considerations. Shouldn’t we look at everything about the candidate, including positions on the issues that could have even a more dramatic impact on Christianity than his personal faith? What about the candidate’s willingness to confront the threat of radical Islam’s war against Christianity, or the current efforts to undermine our Judeo-Christian culture and even our religious freedom? Like most voters, my faith matters more than politics, but we are electing someone to the most important political position in the world. I’m more concerned about losing our children to jihadis or a materialistic culture than losing them to Mormonism.
Nothing notably surprising there, but even on a fairly simple parsing of this (together with what preceded it), it’s easy enough to think that Santorum (who must surely view himself as a “traditional Christian”) has difficulties in seeing Mormonism as Christian.
That’s not a view I would share. As I wrote on SR last October:
For my part, I don’t much care one way or the other, but I don’t think there can be a great deal of doubt about it. In the course of two thousand years Christianity has long since come to mean much more than those texts that some of its early leaders chose to regard as definitive. Naturally, there are many outgrowths of this now wildly varied religion that some Christians will find wanting. And they are perfectly entitled to do so. Those, however, are issues best left to the sectarians. To an outsider, at least, Mormonism is clearly a part of the greater Christian family.
Nevertheless, I don’t find it particularly shocking that many Christians might disagree, particularly those (such as Santorum) who appear to regard themselves as custodians of some sort of orthodoxy.
So the question is whether Santorum does or does not see Mormons as Christians. Again, his answer wouldn’t worry me either way, but this is an election year and Mormon voters might be interested to hear what Santorum has to say on this topic.
I’m not sure why Santorum might think Mormons aren’t Christian; I certainly don’t, for several reasons. The reason I think is most applicable to an “outsider” (as your call yourself) isn’t theological, though; it’s sociological. Mormonism as an institution has from their founding described themselves not as a version of Christianity differing in points of doctrine, but as a complete reinstitution of Christianity entirely separate from the rest of the churches, which are described as “false” and “abominable”.
I’m not entirely resorting to the excuse “they started it”, but it’s the most important point that an outsider would admit has validity. The same points hold for the currently termed Christian “cults” of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Science, and explain the persistent distance between Catholicism and Protestantism (they have verbally separated in a more nuanced way than any of the above, so the sociological tension is less), and nicely explains the current relative reconciliation between the Baptistic branches and the Lutherans and Calvinists (at first there was a lot of “bad blood” in a disturbingly literal sense).
-Wm
Wm,
Go to the dictionary and look up the word Christian. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) are Christians by that definition. We follow Christ and we ascribe to the same teachings and practices of the original Apostles as they were taught and ordained by Jesus Christ. We believe the Bible to be the word of God. We do not follow the Creeds of Nicaea because we believe that council lacked the authority to speak for God. Therefore, one could say that Mormons are Apostolic Christians as opposed to Nicaean Christians.
We allow you the right to call yourself a Christian if you choose, and would ask that you give us the same right.
Melli, I don’t know why you think that a dictionary will help in a technical question — a dictionary shows common use, it won’t help to diagnose.
You next attempt to address theology and history. Unfortunately, this isn’t the right place for theology, but I’ll note that your historical arguments don’t actually include any claims that have ever been supported by data. (And by the way, although I follow Nicea, I also agree that it lacked the ability to speak for God; I believe it provides evidence for what the attenders believed and/or were able to persuade each other to accept. If, like yourself, I suspected that Nicea invented doctrine, I would also reject it as insufficient; but I see its job as deciding between two preexisting points of view, not inventing a new one.)
Next you attempting to address the problem as one of freedom — you want the freedom to use the name just as you “allow” us freedom to use it. You give yourself too much credit for “allowing” us freedom (it’s not within your power to deny us). And yes, that certainly goes the other direction too. We live in a society such that anyone can call themselves anything, and that’s fine. Now I have the freedom to tell you you’re using the term wrongly, and you get to decide whether to respond. Appealing to freedom doesn’t resolve the question.
For the purposes of my comment, the sociological definition of a separate religion does the job quite well. Your group wants to use the name of a larger group, while denying EVERY OTHER PART of that group the name for any reason other than purely nominal purposes. The fact is that you claim the name ‘Christian’ in a special way, such that you use it when you want to claim to be part of a larger movement, and then deny association with every other part of that larger movement.
Are Mormons Christians? It depends on the Mormon’s use of the term. Some Mormons are Christians, if they actually mean that the other Christians are Christians in the same sense that they are.
Would I vote for a Mormon? Sure. No problem at all.
-Wm
Go Mitt Romney!
I hope the American People choose wisely, but I am doubtful…