Mad Voter: Evangelicals shouldn't discount Romney

Evangelicals shouldn’t discount Romney simply because he’s Mormon. With the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush as examples, evangelical Christians should have figured out by now that a candidate who shares their religious beliefs doesn’t necessarily qualify to be president. The first was completely ineffective; the second is so bullheaded that he will leave office having done more harm than good.

Though I’m not really a fan of his candidacy for president, that’s why I’m frustrated that some evangelicals won’t support Mitt Romney – who shares many of their political views – simply because he’s Mormon.

As an active participant in an evangelical church, I’ve watched with interest the reaction of many evangelicals to Romney’s candidacy. My best friend is Mormon, and I’ve always been fascinated by the dynamic of the relationship between the two faiths.

Many evangelicals view Mormonism as a cult. And though Mormons, in my experience, aren’t as harsh in their attitude toward evangelicals, they ultimately believe their own religion restores a gospel that was corrupted by others and isn’t taught in its full form in any other church.

Believers in both faiths often carry those views to the political realm. Some Mormons I know automatically consider Romney the most likely candidate to receive their votes in 2008 because he shares their faith. Many evangelicals have hesitated to support Romney and, in recent weeks, made ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee the GOP frontrunner in Iowa.

So I listened with interest last week to Romney’s speech on faith in America. I believe he adequately articulated the role faith should play in the public decisions of our leaders – giving them conviction and guiding them but never taking precedence over the Constitution and “the common cause” of Americans.

Heath Haussamen is an independent, online political journalist based in Las Cruces, N.M.

Many evangelicals don’t see that as the role faith should play in the decisions of public officials. They want to return prayer to the public schools, keep Ten Commandment displays in public courts and insert their faith into other aspects of a government that exists to serve people with differing beliefs.

Though about a third identify themselves as Democrats, evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. It’s a culture group that has, in recent years, resorted to the sort of tribal thinking that suggests a candidate who shares its religious beliefs makes a better leader than one who does not.

As an active Christian, that has been baffling and frustrating to me. My faith leads me to seek a presidential candidate who has conviction and integrity, whether it comes from faith in God or a belief in equality or another source. But I’m also looking for someone who understands that, as president, his or her beliefs don’t reign supreme, and the presidential oath of office is a promise to uphold the Constitution as the highest authority on matters of state.

Our founding fathers had the wisdom to see that freedom of religion had to take precedence over any religious beliefs, including their own, because anything else would lead to tyranny. But that shouldn’t lead to an absence of religion from public or private life, as some on the left desire. It should lead to freedom for Americans to choose any religion – or no religion – without fear of persecution, discrimination or ridicule.

Editor’s note: Heath Haussamen's weekly blogs are part of a feature on The Denver Post's PoliticsWest.com site called "Diary of a Mad Voter." The group blog, published in partnership with NewWest.Net/Politics, is intended to give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the '08 election cycle. Check back regularly at www.politicswest.com for "Diary of a Mad Voter."

Bookmark/Search this post with: