THERE'S a small chance that the next President of the United States will be somebody who believes that in the early decades of the 19th century, a man called Joseph Smith had an encounter with a vision of an angel who told him where to find some golden plates.On locating them, Smith found that the plates contained God's revelation.
He then founded a religion.
Mormonism has ebbed and flowed in popularity since that day, and is now on the verge of having one of its own in the White House.
Mitt Romney is that Mormon. Until very recently, he was regarded as the Republican with perhaps the best chance of beating Rudi Giuliani or John McCain for the Republican nomination for the presidency.
In recent weeks, however, a rapid rise in opinion polls for Mike Huckabee . . . like Bill Clinton, a former governor of Arkansas . . . has focused attention on Romney's religion as a possible barrier to his success.
Huckabee is an easygoing, unthreatening Baptist minister, the kind of Republican with whom Democrats could probably live if they can't have a Clinton, Obama or Edwards as president.
(Asked at a meeting recently about how he would keep the United States safer, Huckabee didn't talk about invading Iran but recounted how his children always laugh at him when he tells him that he and his schoolmates were told to "duck and cover" in the event of a Soviet nuclear attack.
"I want to be the president, " he said, "that helps to make it so that your grandchildren laugh at you when you tell them you used to have to put your toothpaste in a plastic bag and take your shoes off to get on an airplane to go somewhere in this country.")
Baptists, like many Christians, believe Mormonism is a sect or cult rather than a religion. More than half of evangelical Christians in Iowa, where the first caucus of the election campaign will be held in 25 days' time, and where Huckabee is ahead in the polls, say they couldn't vote for a Mormon.
And so, last Thursday, Romney made a major speech in which he dealt comprehensively with his faith.
"If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest, " Romney said. He went on: "We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state, nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning.
They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God."
While Mitt Romney was preparing his speech, the Irish Bishops' Conference was getting exercised about an advertisement for Veritas bookshops which was to have run on radio over the Christmas period. The ad, for gifts, books and cribs, was queried by RTE because of the use of the word crib, which has religious connotations. Instead, the ad had to be resubmitted with 'crib' removed.
In a statement, the Bishops' Conference said RTE's decision to crib about the word 'crib' was "both an affront to Christians and belies common sense in the context of Irish society and culture".
The statement referred in passing to a decision by the owners of a Dublin creche, also revealed last week, to call off their planned nativity play because some parents complained about its religious content. Many readers will believe that this is akin to scrapping Hamlet because some people are afraid of ghosts, and they would be right.
The decision by the creche owners was an idiotic one. RTE's reservations about the Veritas ad were equally stupid, although the national station could at least justify its wariness by referring to the code of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, which outlaws ads for religion or religious ends.
The reasons for that code go to the heart of the issues Mitt Romney spoke about during his speech on Thursday, when he said, "We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state, nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion."
Christians may scoff at Romney's beliefs (although as they believe that the son of God was born to a mother who never had sex, they may not have a leg to stand on), but they must admit that the man has a point. Many people have become so wary of causing offence that the practice of religion has in many cases become more difficult than the pursuit of other equally legitimate interests.
Somebody should be as entitled to follow a religion as he is to follow a football team, do yoga or shop for shoes. These are all free choices and no barriers should be placed in the way of people who want to pursue them.
Instead of basing laws, practices, rules and regulations about religion on a fear of causing offence, they should be based on the twin tenets of free speech and common sense.
Veritas should be as free to advertise their cribs as Tommy Tiernan is to make jokes about the Nativity. Easily offended Muslims should be politely told to shut up if they object to the display of Catholic symbols.
Catholics should have no qualms about having Mosques in their towns. Sikh garda reservists should be allowed to wear their turbans on duty.
By contrast, and still in the spirit of common sense, Muslims wishing to join the gardai should never be allowed to wear a hijab or dishdasha; the difficulties of chasing hoodlums in a long frock would appear to rule that out.
Instead of hindering the practice of religion, a secular society should, subject to laws on incitement to hatred or murder, stay out of the way of believers and let them get on with their lives.In a secular society, those of us who claim a freedom from religion, and the right to abuse or criticise it, should also claim freedom for religion, and the right to practise it.
Anything else starts to look like intolerance. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce