Current Events: February 2008 Archives

The Wall Street Journal reports that Mormons have been caught off guard by the virulent opposition they've received* since the beginning of the Romney campaign. Many more people would welcome a black or woman president than a Mormon one, casting anti-Mormonism as the last socially acceptable prejudice. (We of course know this is not true ...). They discuss the vigorous Evangelical condemnations of Mormon doctrine, common "distortions", and attacks on founder Joseph Smith. 'Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the Catholic journal First Things, wrote that a Mormon presidency would threaten Christian faiths. Atheist author Christopher Hitchens called Mormonism "a mad cult" on Slate.com, and Bill Keller, a former convict who runs an online ministry in Florida, told a national radio audience that a vote for Mr. Romney was a vote for Satan.'

They have a slick apologetic. When one ex-Mormon apologist claimed that Mormons "believe in more than one god", a Mormon apologist called him "wrong on the facts" and said "Mormons pray to one God". Ah, a bit of bait and switch here. The claim was not that they pray to multiple gods. The claim was that they believe in multiple gods, that is to say, they acknowledge the existence of multiple gods, whether they pray to them all or not. (In particular they believe that every believer is destined to become a god. With his own planet, no less.)

Anyway my own perspective is that if a Mormon is more likely to uphold family values (which seems likely given their culture), I'm all for him being elected president. (It's not clear Romney was such a great candidate in this regard, though.) I'd rather have a devout Mormon than a nominal Christian. Of course better still is a fervent Christian.

*Available until around February 15th.

Here is a quote I wanted to add to my post on voting but forgot to include it. As Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta says, "We are not called to be successful; we are called to be faithful." God judges us on our fidelity to truth, not whether we actually accomplish anything.

I've added the quote in context to the post.

Per my earlier post, I discovered to my surprised the Alan Keyes scored almost 10,000 votes in California and more than a few votes in several other states. Fascinating!

Today is Super Tuesday, when my state and 23 others voted in the presidential primary. A friend and I were discussing our votes this weekend and when I disclosed who I was voting for, she dismissively said that I was wasting my vote.

I resolved in the 2000 election to vote for people I want to be president instead of voting for the one everyone else seems to think will win. At the time I was behind Alan Keyes and when I'd bring him up with my friends, they all agreed he was a wonderful choice, but since he couldn't be elected, there was, they argued, no point in voting for him. In my frustration I wryly noted to myself that maybe if half the people who actually wanted him for president actually voted for him, maybe he'd have half a chance. So I swore that I'd vote, not grudgingly and with reservations, with my nose pinched, but triumphantly and proudly. And do you know what? Having voted that way in 2000 and 2004, I do not regret at all my vote, however inconsequential it seemed to be. I am in fact elated at how things turned out because had I voted for Bush, I would have been hanging my head in shame.

The other thing I hate about this popularity argument — that we should vote only for those who are allegedly electable — is that it is circular reasoning. We have to vote for someone everyone else is voting for. (Why?) But then we're voting for what other people want, not what we want; we're chasing after the wind. You know these cultural phenoms where someone starts doing something, then someone starts copying them, and then everyone gets into the act, until everyone realizes that they're just following one another and there is no actual substance to what people are doing? (Fashion is a lot like this.) I say vote for who you want to be elected, not for who someone else wants to be elected. Show some leadership!

Now let's examine this argument that one's vote is "wasted". Voting is a moral act. We will be judged by God on how we vote. It doesn't matter whether your vote is even counted or not for whatever reason, your vote makes a moral statement before God and for that reason alone it is never wasted. As Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta says, "We are not called to be successful; we are called to be faithful." Second, votes send a message. Even if my candidate hasn't a snowball's chance, someone can look at the results and see, wow, this many people supported him. Third, people who argue in such a way won't argue that voting for a major candidate in a state predominated by the other party is a wasted vote. For example, one could argue that in Massachusetts, a presidential vote for a Republican candidate is always wasted because there is no way a Republican will win Massachusetts in this period in history. One could also argue that unless votes only differ by one vote, then your vote doesn't count either. If you stay home election day, except for that nearly impossible case, your vote won't make a difference.

My point is, one can make various arguments about what voting for so-and-so is a "wasted" vote, but I don't think votes are ever wasted. Even when they are in an extreme minority, they send a message, if only to God.