By now George W. Bush’s answer to the question of who is favorite philosopher is — Jesus Christ was the answer — is well known. Most religious people for some reason thought it was not only an acceptable answer, but a good answer. (The question might have been silly — I do not expect most politicians to be as acquainted with philosophers as they should be with policy.) There is a growing body of material that attempts to describe how religion has not only come to shape President Bush’s administration but the government as a whole. From Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy to Gary Wills’ just published “A Country Ruled by Faith,” the list grows longer and more worrisome, in my estimation, as to the influence of religion on politics.

I suppose that some might wonder why a religious person would worry about the growing influence of religion in politics, especially from the perspective that many have that our country has been overly secular for some time. I will try to explicate my worries in this post and a few to follow. My foremost concern, however, is that a religious value or belief, such as the efficacy of the atonement or the nature of the trinity, is different than a value such as, say, liberty or freedom. The first value demands assent to a particular proposition or a set of propositions, while the second type of value is one that can be debated. Democracy, which is a procedure for governance, thrives on debate and continually checking our beliefs against the reality of the times. Hopefully, as we understand the weaknesses in the application of our values to reality, we move to correct these weaknesses. For example, freedom has always been a central concept in our political discourse, but at one time the concept did not cover minorities and women. Now it does. Having to assent to a set of propositions, such as religious people are likely to do, is fine for one’s private life but not for public life. Either one accepts, for example, that Joseph Smith is a prophet or that he is not. In order to be a “believing” Mormon one has to accept that he is a prophet. There is no debate on that issue. The reason that this should concern Mormons is because, whether we like to admit it or not and despite President Hinckley’s enviable attempt to move the LDS church into the world of mainstream Christianity, many Christian denominations still see us, at best, as strange, and at worse, as heretical. If having to assent to a set of propositions possibly excludes good and well meaning and patriotic Mormons from public service then both the United States and the church will be the worse off for it.

It is quite well known that Mitt Romney is considering a run for president. However, the irony of his position is that his public values — meaning his conception of freedom, the role of the state, etc. — actually matches the world view of most conservatives. However, his private values — what he takes the Trinity to be, the atonement, etc. — might be enough to exclude him from public service in the minds of many evangelical Christians. Hugh Hewitt, a well-known conservative pundit, scholar, and author, is in fact writing a book on Mitt Romney to persuade the conservative base that Romney’s religion should not exclude him from a run at the presidency. This is an admirable effort on Hugh’s part, to reach out across religious lines and try to find similarities that make one a good public servant rather than an “orthodox” Christian. (Hugh is a former Catholic and now an evangelical Christian. I have heard him describe himself as some strange mix of Catholic Evangelical Presbyterian, but I am sure I have got that wrong and I don’t really claim to understand what that even means.) I am afraid that Hugh’s attempts to convince his fellow evangelicals will ultimately fail.

I want to get back to President Bush. The list of absurdity that I have concerning his, in my opinion, poorly thought out mixing of church influence on the state is long and needs editing so it will have to wait for my next post. I want to make the claim now that Mormons, indeed all religions, are best served if privately held religious values remain privately held. I hope the next administration will be able to change the poorly laid path set by President Bush. If Mitt Romney were to miraculously get the Republican nomination and did not set out a very specific and well laid intention to overturn many of the practices of the Bush administration, I will not vote for him. In that case I guess I would also not be voting for him because he is a Mormon. Not because he is a Mormon, per se, but because he is a Mormon who does not know how to separate his beliefs as a believer in a religion versus the beliefs necessary to be a public servant. I hope he is not that kind of Mormon. (More Later)