Mormons Conflicted over Immigrants

In his article, Daniel González examines the appeal of the Mormon church to Latinos, who have recently flocked to the Latter-Day Saints in overwhelming numbers – and often illegally. Mormon missionaries have been proselytizing in Latin American countries, appealing to the Hispanic population by emphasizing the religion’s focus on strong family and cultural ties. When these people migrate to America to join the church, Mormons seem to uphold a no-questions-asked policy, which has been usurped to such an extreme that an estimated 70% of Latino converts are in the country illegally. Many Mormons take issue with this development; especially since the majority identify with the Republican Party, which is known for a strong anti-immigrant stance.

Historically, Mormons have been seen more as an insidious cult than as a faction of Christianity. 19th century Americans disdained their blind acceptance with the claim that the religion attracted criminals and fools who hoped to be purified and gain the status of a ‘king or priest,’ as founder Joseph Smith promised, since a Mormon baptism could even purify one who ‘had murdered all [his] days.’ It is interesting to note, however, that many Catholic organizations have adopted a similar no-questions policy, yet officials have only considered removing tax-exempt status from Mormon organizations. Are Mormons being judged unfairly because of their stereotype?

Regardless of how they fit into the whole moral spectrum though, the ultimate question is this: is it acceptable – or credible – that this organization allows law-breaking and then preaches morality? While it is true that the freedom of choice to break the law and immigrate lies with their converts, is it okay for the LDS church to leave the issue unaddressed rather than taking an active stance? This seems like a flashback to their polygamous days, when the Supreme Court ruled that Mormons were not permitted to act on principles of doctrines of their faith (today: compassion, acceptance, charity) if it meant breaking the law of the land…

Gay marriage and religion's role in politics

In his article “Religion, Politics and Culture” Jonathan Thompson argues that any initiative that bans gay marriage infringes on the rights of homosexuals and that religion does not belong in politics. Thompson explains that the constitutional amendment in Colorado and proposal 8 in California “erode equality and codify bigotry”. These laws have denied US citizens their rights to “freedom from” and “freedom of” religion. Thompson claims, just as Wald and Calhoun-Brown do in their book Religion and Politics in the United States, that religion has permeated politics. Thompson concedes that religion has been used in a positive manner in politics by citing the examples of the civil rights movement and the abolitionist movement but then claims that religion belongs “in the churches and the homes”.
While I agree with his argument about the laws pertaining to gay marriage, I do not agree that religion should not have any part in politics. As Thompson points out, religion has played a positive role in politics and I think there’s a lot of potential for the future. Religion should not be used in politics to deny citizens inalienable rights such as the right of privacy and of freedom from religion (as it does in the gay marriage legislation) but instead used to foster a sense of awareness of other people’s problems and bring about more social change. There are certain concepts that are prevalent in most religions that could be useful in politics. For example, “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are both concepts that encourage tolerance and would be useful in addressing gay marriage. In addition to these universal concepts, religion imbues its followers with a sense of individual responsibility and accountability, which are definitely lacking in politics now.
While Thompson is correct that religion does have the potential to infringe on the rights of citizens who do not follow that specific religious code, he is also naïve to think that religion has no place in politics. True, religion’s role in politics can be flawed but without it would there have been a civil rights movement or the possibility of a tolerant enough constituency to elect the first African American president?

Fire and Brimstone?

In his December column, "The politics of religion in America", The Boston Globe's columnist James Carroll joins the ranks of innumerable others by taking a stance on how those very subjects are intertwined in America.  Initially inspired by Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, Carroll's column expounds on the confusing differences between religious and political freedom.  He argues that although the religious, including Romney, claim that America's mandate for political freedom springs forth from religious values and ideals of freedom and equality, the "most overtly religious people" in our country actually oppose freedom.  According to Carroll, the religious right is responsible for supporting many of the negative parts of our political system that "secular" Europe already eliminated, such as the death penalty and an insatiable desire for war.  Closing out his column, Carroll attacks all forms of faith, not singling out Mormonism, and ensuring that this views on faith come through clearly.

I find it interesting first that the religious leaders would establish themselves as a source and proponent of freedom, given that religion was actually quite the opposite merely 150 years ago.  As discussed in "Religion and Politics in the United States, by Kenneth D. Wald and Allison Calhoun-Brown, religion was popular for the lower classes because it gave them hope for the next life, and the upper classes propagated it because it encouraged the lower classes to accept their position in life as God's will, and helped pacify them.  Looking at such a history, it appears that religion and the political freedom advocated by Jefferson are mutually exclusive ideals.  I agree with Carroll in this point, that Romney's speech lacked factual basis, but despite the other examples he mentions, I do not see the connection between his early argument and the statement that "every religion is a religion of myth".  With this remark, Carroll makes the transition from an argument that is reasonably well documented, or at least convincing, to raining fire and brimstone on the basis of religion, which causes me to rethink his opening point.  Without taking such a position, Carroll's column would be much more credible, but an important part of being a columnist is inciting heated discussion, right?