I have not heard much commentary from Mormons in the media or elsewhere arguing that Evangelical creedal Christians are unfit for public office because of their religious beliefs. I think it is highly unlikely that this would occur even if Mormons were in the majority in a particular political party’s primary constituency.

Religious pluralism is indissociable from a truly republican democratic society. It is the natural and desirable outcome of the particular framework for protecting religious freedom that is set up in our Constitution. The French approach of laïcité is not desirable or appropriate in the United States because our political and intellectual heritage (inherited from the English Enlightenment) in this country did not necessitate certain drastic measures to curb what was perceived as a major problem of church and state corruptly reinforcing each other and abusing human rights. Our resulting framework, contrary to French laïcité, allows us to rise above mere religious toleration to enjoy a genuine pluralism while still respecting the separation of church and state that is essential for the protection of freedom of conscience for those who do not belong to the majority religion. I wonder whether Warren Smith is particularly concerned with the separation of church and state and the preservation of a robust secular public sphere or whether his ideal society looks more like Iran (if the theocracy in Iran were fundamentalist American Evangelical Christians) — after all, despite the complaints that we hear from time to time from American Evangelical Christians that Christians are the most persecuted people in our country or in the world, Warren Smith has little need to worry that his faith will ever be classified in the United States as a minority religion that needs protection against the intentions of a government composed of adherents of a faith that bears ill will against or even that harbors outright desire to eradicate his religion.

Each of us will of course be informed by our prejudices when standing in the voting booth. For many, including Warren Smith, prejudice against a person based on the religion he or she was born into and to which he or she remains loyal despite the obvious advantages that would come from walking away from that religion, will be one of the factors guiding a decision in the voting booth, regardless of the candidate’s abilities, background, or other qualifications. This comes along in the package with a rights-protecting democracy.

Warren Smith’s argument is a justification of letting such prejudice determine a vote. My argument is not too bothered with the inherent incivility of this approach (which is the topic of a post by a friend of mine to which I linked in the first sentence of the original post — you might be interested in checking that one out too). I am exploring what Warren Smith’s ideal society looks like by following his logic on this point to its ultimate conclusions.

I do not see any reason to think that Warren Smith intends a category distinction between President of the United States and any other visible leadership or leading position in society, or any position in which a Mormon would be in contact with and have the opportunity to portray Mormonism in a positive light to fundamentalist Evangelical Christian children (like a school teacher or a policeman or fireman). If Mormonism is so dangerous that it alone can disqualify someone from the Presidency, there is no reason to think that Warren Smith approves of his daughter’s Mormon fifth grade teacher or that the CEO of the biggest company in his state is Mormon (both hypothetical — I have no idea whether Mormons are in such positions). Why do you think Warren Smith is fine with the CEO of Credit Suisse being Mormon or the founder of JetBLue airlines or the governor of a state but not the President of the United States?

It certainly seems you’d answer “yes” to that last one, based on your urging us all to “work tirelessly” to avoid a world like Smith (you claim) wants. But if I am right that such is your position, then, again, you appear to be doing the same thing as Smith. Namely, decrying someone’s fitness for office on the basis of their religious beliefs.

As I understand it, you do so on the basis of your commitment to the “fundamental American values of religious freedom and pluralism”. Now, “religious freedom” as a fundamental value, I understand, because it’s explicitly encoded in the Bill of Rights. But what, exactly, do you mean by “pluralism”, and where is this “fundamental” value to be found, exactly?

Because you appear to be using “pluralism” to mean freedom from criticism, decrying Smith’s attacks on Mormon belief, and allowing these attacks to inform his voting and his speech. I don’t think “pluralism” like that is a fundamental value at all. Perhaps you don’t either. If so, again, please explain what you did mean.

Still, assuming that pluralism is as fundamental as religious freedom, what to do when these values clash? As, indeed, they have here. Smith is plainly exercising his religious freedom here (as well as his freedom of speech). Yet you decry him for being anti-pluralism. Which value trumps the other? You appear to be arguing that pluralism wins. If so, we definitely need a clear definition for it. And what would you cite from a legal standpoint to indicate that pluralism trumps a First Amendment right?

Beyond that, you’ve constructed a rather tenuous straw man, in which I’m expected to believe that Smith’s argument applies at every single level, to every possible vocation — from President on down to parent. But, from what I’ve read, this is not Smith’s argument at all. Are you really unable to distinguish between President and any other elected official? And between all elected officials and any other position in the workplace or society? This appears to be an egregious category error on your part.

You wrote: “The truly chilling aspect of WCS’s perspective is considering its ultimate implications for our pluralistic society in the United States. … For most Americans, this whole idea should be very alarming and viewed as extraordinarily dangerous to the pluralism and good order that we enjoy today in our Constitutional Republic, the first fruits of which are to guarantee religious freedom and freedom of conscience. … Let us all work tirelessly to prevent this from happening and to promote a truly pluralistic society that is true to its first freedom in protecting the religious freedom of all of its citizens. The alternative is not only dangerous — for Americans, it is unthinkable.”

But that same freedom of religion allows any private individual, in light of his own religious views, to *not* vote for a candidate precisely because he disagrees with their religious views. And our freedom of speech allows him to explain to others why he isn’t voting for that person. As indeed it allows you to say why you think he is wrong to do so.

But freedom of religion means freedom for people who don’t like your religion to say so, and to try to win others over to their point of view. If WCS’s comments are to be suppressed, then in what sense are we a “truly pluralistic society”? He speaks as a private citizen, does he not?

In short, your article itself seems to be a “proscription by adherents of one particular religious dogma of other religions/dogmas in their spiritual privileges and the denial of the individual rights of citizens who happen to be members of a disfavored religion” — except that it favors the “dogma” of pluralism and proscribes as “dangerous” the criticizing of others’ beliefs and acting on that in an electoral capacity.

N.B.: I didn’t read WCS’s article, nor do I know anything about the man, nor even agree with his points as you have summarized them. And I know little about Mormon beliefs, as such.