Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith

Bill Keller of the New York Times recently turned his column to the issues surrounding the importance of the religion of our presidential candidates. He began by musing about whether we would disqualify a candidate if they believed we had been visited by space aliens only to arrive at the conclusion that since one out of three Americans believe we have had visitors from space that not knowing for sure yourself is reason enough to give a person the benefit of the doubt. He then states emphatically that he would, however, need to ask more questions of any candidate that professed such a belief. I can fully understand his logic because if the reason the person believes we have been visited by aliens is because he is nuts then maybe giving him control of enough nuclear weapons to annihilate the entire human race is not such a good idea.

So what kind of questions would you ask of an alien visitation believer to see if they are nuts? I think I might ask them things like when did the aliens come? Where did they land? What do they look like? Are any of them still here? Now the last two are the really important ones to me because he is nuts if he leans over to me and says,"Yeah there here and my opponent Joe over there is one. They took over his body." After I determine that he is really not kidding then I am going to be really really hesitant to to turn him loose with our army and all our nukes. Of course, to be fair, just in case Joe has had his body taken over by aliens I will go talk to Joe.

Now I am going to walk up to Joe and slap him on the back and tell him I just heard a funny joke about him from his opponent. Joe is going to start to look a little defensive and ask me what I heard. I am then going to flatly tell him that his opponent believes he has had his body taken over by aliens. Now will come the true test of whether Joe is a pure blood politician or an alien wannabe. A pure politician will respond in one of three ways. He will either swear that his opponent is the real alien, tell his advisers to find a positive spin on this disaster, or simply in his best Jon Huntsman sounding voice call it " the type of nonsense that makes people hate politics." If he is an alien, human, or anything other than a politician he will split a gut laughing about how absolutely ridiculous that idea is and what kind of loon his opponent is. The reason a real politician won't do those things is because you can never predict what the American people heckle you over. Even reporters are walking on eggshells about what is fair game in the realm of asking questions for the candidates.

At the Iowa GOP debates there was a very negative response to the question being asked of Michelle Bachmann about what it means to her to be submissive to her husband. I am a Christian woman and I have been taught all my life that a wife should be submissive to her husband so I didn't think it was such a bad question. I mean shouldn't all the Christians out there want to know whether she practices what she preaches? The problem wasn't that she was asked because I can tell you if Pat Robertson asked her that question on the 700 club nobody would have booed him.

I think we need to know exactly where these candidates who openly wear their religions like a badge of honor really stand. We need to know what the priorities of the three that try really hard not to talk about their religion are and where they stand on issues. Of course I am at an advantage when it comes to Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman because inasmuch as I am a Latter Day Saint I know the realities of what the church expects them to do. You see I know that the greatest pressure they might get from our church leadership is for a visit to the White House for our elderly prophet. However, since he has already been there during President Obama's tenure as President I doubt that he would be overly impressed with doing it again. Then again I am not sure he has slept in the Lincoln Bedroom or not so he might push for that privilege a little bit. It wouldn't take much to get either Mitt or Jon to invite him because it would be an honor for them as Latter Day Saints to host the Prophet just as much as it would be an honor for the Prophet to be hosted by the President.

Ok, Enough of the pleasantries and the visualizing of Jon (not Mitt I'm not his greatest fan) in the White House strolling along the hall to the Lincoln bedroom with the Prophet chatting about typical things LDS men discuss with one another, BYU Sports, with a bunch of secret service agents following them. Let me get back on track here. The question at hand is, "Do the American People have the right to ask candidates about their religious beliefs, particularly ones that might make them unworthy to serve as the President due to their inability to uphold the oath they must take to be president?"

Personally, I think the first thing a candidate needs to do is open up about every ugly little gory detail that they have hiding in their closets before their opponents do and they find themselves having to make ridiculous statements like, "I am not a witch." Of course if you do that you do need to do it in such a way that you actually address your current perspective on all those things. Now my ideal situation is one like you find in the 2006 Robin Williams comedy, "Man of the Year." The scene is one where Mr. Williams character Tom Dobbs, a television comedian who is running for president, goes through a list of everything he has ever done that could cause one of those political nightmares that candidates often find themselves addressing so their opponent can get them off message. In the movie, this fictional presidential candidate states that he has smoked a joint, visited a hooker since he is single that should not be an issue, and that one of his hands is stronger than the other because as a teen he spent a lot of time in the bathroom looking at porn. There are several other things on his list and then he says to the reporters something to the effect of, Is there any more nonsense you want to know? Then he tells them to get ready because the real campaign was about to begin. Up to that point he had looked and sounded just like every other politician. However, he had lost it while listening to the political BS during the Presidential Debate and went back to being himself and attacking the candidates on their voting records and campaign contributors. If you haven't seen the movie you need watch it. Tom Dobbs is my ideal presidential candidate, too bad he isn't real.

Yes, we do have the right to ask the questions and since we, the people, do not have the opportunity to ask candidates ourselves then we need the media to ask the tough questions for us and hold them accountable for their answers. However, if I am going to expect my President to answer those questions then I need to be willing to answer them too. So exactly what are the questions the candidates need to answer? Well once again Bill Keller has helped us out by formulating very important questions for a questionnaire that he has sent to each of the candidates. I challenge each of you to ask yourself these questions not only from the perspective of your personal beliefs but ask yourself what kind of answers would you want from the man or woman who has at their disposal the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, the best trained and best equipped armed forces in the world, and who has control over the current universal currency of the world, thereby giving that person control over the global economic markets.

Here are the general questions and my answers:

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?
Absolutely as long as you allow the candidate to fully express their beliefs in an open question form first before stepping on to specific questions. This will give each candidate a chance to present the big picture of their beliefs in context before you hone in on specific beliefs.

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

Certainly, as long as the remarks you are questioning them about come from the material they promote. We have little control over other people and we can like a publication or a speech by a person while disliking their other rhetoric. These nuanced relationships exist in most of our lives and often include people we are close to, such as, relatives, lifelong friends, and ministers.


3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?”

Yes and No. We do not have a state based religion but we do tend to be a "Judeo-Christian" nation.

(b) What does that mean in practice?

Nothing. It means that there are more people in this country that claim as their religion some "Judeo-Christian" sect. It is a statistic that is interesting just like the total number of Autistic people, the total number of Latinos, or any other group.

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

This is a little tricky so let me step through it very carefully. My religion has 13 basic articles of faith. This dilemma can be resolved by reviewing two of them in conjunction with the 1st Amendment Right of Religious Freedom.

The 1st Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My understanding of this is that I have the freedom to worship whatever, or whoever, I so desire and have to respect the rights of everyone else to do likewise. The 11th Article of Faith of my church clearly states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

As long as the conflict between the government and my religion is not based in the government making a law respecting my church or the free practice of our religion then we would have no issue. I even would approve of the government including clauses in controversial legislation that affirms the right of churches to exercise their 1st amendment rights to not support those laws. My example of a proper use of such a clause would be in a law allowing for same sex marriages. Although, a state government may choose to allow same sex marriage it should not force churches who view marriage as a religious rite to perform such marriages or allow their buildings to be used for such ceremonies if it is against their religious beliefs. This includes forcing the issue through alternate non-discrimination and equal use laws like the ones on the books in California that could have been used to force churches to rent their facilities to same sex couples if same sex marriage becomes legal in California.

Now let me address the one thing that guarantees that there would not be a conflict between my religion and the government unless it was in a situation like the one addressed above. While the 11th Article of Faith expresses our views regarding Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religious Oppression the 12th Article of Faith addresses our responsibility as citizens of the world and representatives of the Lord when it states:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Ultimately if all legal recourse to change a law that we feel is unjust has been exhausted then we resolve to follow the example that Christ did when he submitted himself unto the Roman Government that led to his crucifixion.



5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench?
I would have no issues with having a Muslim appointed the the federal bench. The only concern I would have to have appeased is the answer to the very questions that are being asked here with regard to a conflict between religion and the laws of the country but I would also expect that of any person of faith.

(b) What about an atheist?

I would have no issues with having an Atheist appointed the the federal bench. The only concern I would have to have appeased is the answer to whether they could rule objectively to uphold the 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech when that speech included religious speech.


6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

No, their religions should not affect the way you look at them. but I am prejudiced in this area since I am a Mormon.

Yes Mormons are Christians we simply have a different definition of the true nature of God and Christ and do not accept the Nicene Creed. We believe in God the father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three distinct entities with one purpose so that they are "as one" just as a husband and wife are "as one" in a marriage while actually being two distinct people.


7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

Unlike Dominionism we do not believe that Christians have a divine right to rule the earth while in our current mortal state. We do believe that after the return of Christ that this will be the case but it will not be "us" that is ruling the world but Christ who is ruling the world. You have to understand that there is a problem with the semantics around the name Jesus Christ. Christ is not his surname it is his title. He is Jesus, The Christ which is to say the embodiment of the son of the eternal father. This spiritual being who was set apart to give us the message of our purpose here may have come here to different groups under different names and yet be the same spirit of the son of the living God. For all we know the Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, may have housed the spirit of the son of God. He taught that the Christians had strayed because they put too much emphasis on the person of Christ which was actually quite contrary to most of Christ's teachings. Islam considers Jews to be unbelievers because they deny the power of God by denying his prophets and Christians to be the misguided ones because their focus is not on worshiping God/Allah but on worshiping Christ. Although there has been no formal revelation as to the true nature of the spirit of Muhammad by any latter day Prophet there is also no reason why in our religion that Christ could not have manifest himself as such particularly since we do believe that after his resurrection but before his ascension he visited the peoples here on the American continent. So we do feel that only Christ that spiritual being whether manifest as Jesus or in some other form will be the only person to rule unilaterally here on this earth.

We do believe that man was given Dominion over the Earth and all that is on it but man is also charged with being a good steward of this gift.


8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution?

Personally, I believe that the beginning of the big bang is described nicely in Genesis as is the beginning of the evolutionary cycle. I believe that the big bang was the equivalent of God reaching out his finger and touching that which was nothing and beginning the process to become something. The six "days" are the six evolutionary cycles where God may have intervened to speed things along slightly according to his divine plan which would explain missing links between stages of evolution. In other words God had in his mind an ideal timeline, he started the process and left it alone, then he came back to check on things and if they were not far enough along he intervened and jump started the next cycle so he could keep things moving on his timeline.


(b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

Yes, I do. However, I believe that it should be taught in such a way that children of faith can arrive at the understanding that I just explained above through logical reasoning. In other words, if a teacher is asked about creationist theories s/he should be able to say something to the effect of the following:

At this point in time there is no evidence that would rule out the evolutionary process being guided by a deity but at the same time there is no evidence to support that presumption either. Believing in a deity is a matter of faith and personal choice. Evolution is a matter of science that defines only the process. Reconciling the two in an intertwined existence is a personal faith based conclusion but there is nothing in science that concretely rules out such a reconciliation

9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

Absolutely not. As a Latter Day Saint we have a strict order of prayer which consists of addressing our Heavenly Father, thanking him for the blessing he has allowed us to have, asking him for our needs, then closing in the name of his son and our redeemer Jesus, The Christ. We do not believe in vainly repeating the Lord's name numerous times or praying loudly, or many other behaviors that are commonly done in prayers. If prayer is allowed to be led by teachers in public schools then the prayers of all religions would have to be allowed and that would expose my child to prayer in a way that I believe is an abomination in the sight of God. No prayers so that every parent's right to train up their child in their religious beliefs which is part of their free exercise of their religion is fully protected under the law while respecting the free practice of the religions of others to include Atheism which is a religion that does not believe in the existence or worship of any deity.

With that being said, I do believe that faith based clubs run by the students with only a faculty adviser that operates in the same capacity as a faculty adviser to the chess club or the drama club should be allowed and that every religion has the right to have such a club. My real preference would be a Religious Diversity Club that would have the focus of allowing students to openly discuss their religions under the supervision of adults that would be charged with keeping the conversation civil but allow the students to explore the similarities and differences in their religions.

I want to thank Bill Keller for formulating these questions and giving me the opportunity to respond to them. I will be looking forward to seeing the candidates responses. Now Bill went on to ask questions that were geared to each candidate individually. Since I share the same religion with Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney I decided to answer the questions he asked of both of them. You will find those answers here.