Rightly or wrongly, Americans today share a sense that overt religious expression in public discourse is, well, arch. A politician is expected to hold his religious beliefs in reserve, not to flaunt them indiscriminately in the open. After all, it is hardly because of religious bigotry that no Roman Catholic politician in the U.S. ever begins a speech by crossing himself and invoking the witness of the Holy Trinity; it is because of a feeling—again, right or wrong—that such a speech just is not the place for that form of expression.

I am not sure, Daniel, that you allow sufficiently for the possibility that Mr. Romney were perfectly confident in his Mormonism but understood and respected the aforementioned archness factor. It has been explained to me (as maybe also to you) that leaders of Mormon parishes never wear beards even though Brigham Young famously wore one. Is this because Mormon parish leaders either revere or deprecate Mr. Young’s beard? Unlikely. More likely it is because the beard would in a contemporary cultural context pose an unnecessary distraction when seen on the leader’s face. I bet the leaders grow beards when they go hunting or camping, just like the rest of us.

Now, you might object that beards were peripheral and religious doctrines, central; and I would agree. I would say however that the objection misses the point. The point is that there is a season for all things, and that Mr. Romney might feel that a presidential campaign were not the season for a discussion of Mormon theology.

I would offer one further observation in Mr. Romney’s defense, in the form of a hypothetical. What would happen if Mr. Romney allowed himself to be drawn out on Mormon doctrine and, say, health care, in the same campaign? What is to stop listeners from conflating Mr. Romney’s views on the two? As unfamiliar as the details of Mormon theology are to most Americans (including me), we might take Mr. Romney’s statements on the one to imply something unwarranted about the other. This is not like eastern Orthdoxy, whose doctrines in slightly modified forms are already broadly familiar to many or most Republican primary voters. Mr. Romney might not feel free to risk putting his church in an embarrassing position by speaking extra cathedra on her religion—not when he speaks from such a prominent pulpit as that of a U.S. presidential campaign. Add to that obvious sense that talking about the odder-seeming points of Mormon doctrine probably does not help Mr. Romney politically, and Mr. Romney’s reticence must seem natural and unsurprising.

Your carefully reasoned argument is well appreciated. I find much in it to agree with and more than a little in it to learn from. Keep up the good work.

If you want to know which practical principles Romney could be turning to for practical advice, I’d recommend reading the books he considers scripture. Joseph Smith called the Book of Mormon the “most correct book on earth” - he said it at a time that spellings and punctuation weren’t as formalized as today, so I assume he was referring to content. That content includes lots of politics, intra- and inter-national. It also includes numerous military advices. The Doctrine & Covenants, another book of Mormon scripture, contains numerous instructions on how to handle general welfare (item of note - the “Mormon” ideal economy is neither in the direction of capitalism OR socialism; it is quite different than either).

If Romney claims any integrity regarding his professed beliefs, I would think he would at the least not operate in direct contradiction to these scriptural precedents.

For some, their religion is merely a belief that saying “Lord, Lord” or participating in a ceremony will have a positive effect on their eternal salvation. For these people, there would be no problem with excluding all thought of religion from their participation in the State.

Personaly I believe that religion is to live according to a set of fixed principles. Those principles are what I’m concerned with. I believe in an Absolute Truth, as opposed to a Relative Truth. There are no “exceptions” to these rules, only overriding or subordinate rules. Different religions, sects and people have varying views on what those Absolute Truths are. Knowing what Truths, or principles, a person holds to can be a key to knowing how that person is likely to act and think. If action doesn’t arise from thought, then where does it come from?

An example of how I see these principles in action would be abortion. I believe that each person consists of the physical body we can see, and a spirit which can’t be seen by our physical eyes. This belief leads me to the thinking that a fetus is a person, and I believe that abortion is taking the life of that person. Does the mother have a right to choose? Yes. But I see the choice as extending past whether or not she’ll carry a child to full term. The choice is whether or not to allow another person to live. The principles I hold to be true lead me to think this. Now, where I differ from some is my belief in what to do in the case of rape. The woman has not invited the child into her life, so at that point I believe she should be able to choose if she’ll share herself with that child. This would be a superseding principle. Farther still, though, while that woman would have justice on her side if she chose to end the life of the child, the higher principle of mercy could be extended, allowing the child to live. So, in summary, I believe there is a rule that should not be broken (Thou Shalt Not Kill), but that this rule can be justifiably overridden by other principle.

I can see why it would appear that we take our beliefs too seriously, but I don’t know how one takes them any less seriously and still bothers to have them. I suppose the atheist argument is that this is one of the problems with religious belief, but it seems to me to be an unavoidable part of that belief. If there are religious voters and they think a candidate’s faith is very important, it is unavoidable that it will become a political issue. I agree that a confession of faith itself tells you little about the man, except that it tells you what it is that he believes in his heart to be divinely revealed truth, which for religious people is a rather significant aspect of his judgement. Compared to his judgement in such matters, what he thinks about health care ends up taking a very distant second place.

I’d vote for him. You religious people take your beliefs way too seriously. While he was railing against Keith Ellison’s choice of the Koran to take his oath of office on, he made the point that people should vote for the person and not the faith. It’s good advice. Evangelicals voted for Jimmy Carter because he was one of them, and look where that got them. The particulars of a person’s faith says very little about his morals or character. If you want to judge morals and character, then judge morals and character.