March 1st, 2007 - Last week I was traveling through the Rocky Mountains, along the I-80 corridor, to visit family in Logan, Utah. We had just left a snow storm in Wyoming when I was trying to loosen the grip on my steering wheel by scanning through radio stations. News-Talk radio is always my favorite and I wasn't disappointed when I came across KSL radio (102.7 fm) broadcasting a morning call-in program out of Salt Lake City. The body of the callers where in outrage that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's religious beliefs were being called into question during his campaign. In fact, Mitt Romney made all of the news reel edits when he suppressed an anti-Mormon heckler by saying, "One of the great things about this land is we have people of different faiths and different persuasions, and a, I'm convinced that the nation, that the nation does need, the nation does need to have people of different faiths but we need to have a person of faith lead the country." While it sounded to me like Mitt Romney was struggling to recall a carefully prepared response to any such attack against his faith, it was also obvious that he wasn't going to hide from such criticism. Most of the callers discussing the exchange on KSL's morning program, along with the host, argued, as Mitt had, that people shouldn't vote against an individual because of their religious affiliation. The host even went on to state that doing so was against the US constitution which bars applying religious restrictions on the office of the presidency. At first this argument sounds fair and is one that was carried all week by the national media. In contradiction to this sentiment, I would argue instead that not only is it just for people to use a candidate's religion as a measure for political office, but it should also be compulsory for anyone trying to make a truly informed decision. I know that this may sound bigoted on the surface, but we must remember that religion, unlike race, sex or disability, is chosen by an individual and is, therefore, not sheltered the same way from criticism. I believe that it is entirely legitimate to use Mitt Romney's religion as a measure of his morality and would think that Mormons would encourage others to do the same. Instead, after listening to KSL for some time, I discovered that there are many Mormons in Utah that have a confounded fear of this leading to national criticism of their faith. Many of the callers expressed that they feel that Mitt Romney's candidacy might lead to what they see as a further misrepresentation of Mormon faith. On the contrary, I believe that his candidacy will bring many of those long held misconceptions to the forefront and dispel them. However, this public discussion will also likely help to educate a large number of people about the difference of traditional Christian faiths and Mormonism. The LDS church has spent many years and considerable effort suppressing these differences

click to visit Mitt Romney's web site.

Mitt Romney between two worlds.

in an effort to gain mainstream acceptances. Nonetheless, it is important for voters to know the difference if they are going to vote an individual into the most powerful political position on the planet. Most opposition to Mitt Romney's religious affiliation has to do with the structure of the Mormon Church. Much like the Catholic faith has the Pope, the Church of Jesus Christ and Ladder Day Saints (LDS) has a central religious leader. Many have fears that, if elected, the LDS church might use its religious influence to dictate to a future President Romney which political course he should follow and how he should vote on certain legislation. This fear is not completely without merit. The LDS Church has a long history of applying political pressure and influence on Utah's own legislature. To think that the church wouldn't like this advantage on a national scale is ridiculous. What is also ridiculous is to think that other religions don't apply similar pressure around the country to further their agendas. This creates a powerful dilemma for Mitt Romney. If he is a man of faith and strong moral conviction, one would expect that he would lend himself to the requests of his church, especially because LDS theology dictates that the Church President is the prophet and direct voice of God. On the other hand, if Mitt Romney refuses to follow the directions of his religious leader, it is evidence that he is not the "person of faith" that he has made himself out to be. For those that still argue that voting against someone based on their religion is a form of bigotry let me ask this; isn't it then just as bigoted to vote for someone because of their faith? How many devout Mormons do we expect will be voting for Mitt Romney in the primary primarily because they share the same faith? Likewise, if an atheist, Satanist or even radical Muslim were running for office, would any Mormons take pause about lending their vote to that individual, even if they shared their core political stances? In the end, a person's religious persuasion tells us a lot about an individual and is something that all candidates should be willing to discuss openly during a campaign. Of course I must also say that I feel it is completely okay to vote for someone that doesn't share my religious beliefs as long as I can be relatively certain that we share similar political ideas. In the end, many of the moral tenants held up by the Christian faithful across the country are shared and often practiced with more diligence by LDS followers. As for me, I will likely vote for Mitt Romney because of this reason. I am also looking forward to a national discussion about the difference between Mormonism and traditional Christian faiths because bigotry is a product of fear that comes primarily from a lack of understanding and information.

- Richard Okelberry, Managing Editor