Religion, Nationalism, and Terror

Munson: The most obvious difference between Mitt Romney’s situation today and John Kennedy’s in 1960 is that the Christian Right has become a key component of the Republican Party’s electorate and Romney cannot win the Republican presidential nomination without its support. Kennedy did not need to worry about “Christian conservatives” in running for the Democratic nomination and he was able to win the general election despite the opposition of Christian fundamentalists as well as that of more moderate evangelicals like Billy Graham. (In the 1960s, Christian fundamentalists would never have accepted the label “evangelical” that many fundamentalists today routinely embrace.)

Ironically, the same Christian fundamentalists who continue to view Mormon politicians with suspicion have become accustomed to working closely with conservative Catholics, even though their view of Catholicism as a form of heretical idolatry has not changed. (The justices on the Supreme Court who regularly support the Christian Right’s positions are all conservative Catholics.) The Christian Right has said virtually nothing about Rudy Giuliani’s Catholicism, although many conservative evangelicals are extremely disturbed by his views on abortion and gay rights and his personal history of adultery and divorce.

One reason some conservative evangelicals will end up voting for Romney is the widespread view that Mike Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination or the general election and that a vote for him is in effect a vote for Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton.

Eventually, Christian fundamentalists will probably become as tolerant of Mormon politicians as they now are of Catholic politicians like Pat Buchanan and Rick Santorum. But they have not reached that point yet. And that is one reason the Romney campaign is in trouble.

Kenneth Woodward, Mitt Romney Is No Jack Kennedy - New York Times, December 5, 2007

INEVITABLY, Mitt Romney’s long-awaited speech on faith and religious freedom tomorrow at the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M will be compared to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to Protestant ministers in Houston, just 90 miles away. Like Kennedy, Mr. Romney faces questions about his religious beliefs and how they might affect his judgments as president. Also like Kennedy, Mr. Romney realizes — and polls demonstrate — that a sizable number of voters (again, mostly Southern white Protestants) oppose him because of his religion.

But the differences are more pronounced than the similarities. In 1960, Kennedy had already won the Democratic nomination and, as a Catholic, faced a phalanx of religious groups working publicly against his election. Among them was Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which was opposed in principle to any Catholic as president. An Episcopal bishop, James A. Pike of California, was its best-known spokesman.

Five days before Kennedy’s speech, moreover, a group of prominent Protestant clergymen headed by Norman Vincent Peale and L. Nelson Bell, the editor of Christianity Today and father-in-law of Billy Graham (Mr. Graham himself backed out at the last minute), mobilized the National Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom specifically to block Kennedy’s bid. In addition, the Baptist state conventions in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona and Texas had already voted to oppose any Catholic candidate for president. In short, Kennedy knew his adversaries, some of whom were seated right in front of him.

Mr. Romney, in contrast, faces no organized religious opposition he can allude to, no anti-Mormon campaign he can shame — as Kennedy adroitly did — for blatant religious bigotry. On the contrary, most Americans still do not know much about the Mormon Church, and many of them are willing to accept Mr. Romney’s assertion that Mormons are Christians, albeit of a highly unorthodox kind. Unlike Kennedy, he has no ready audience to convince.