That's probably a better question to ask than the one posed by George Handlery over at the Brussels Journal:
"Would a Mormon President Subvert American Democracy?"
Handlery writes the following:
["What follows below is not a Romney-fan’s propaganda. Actually, my favorite used to be another aspirant. The LDS affiliation of Mitt Romney exposes us again to the temptation to make religion into a criterion for picking a candidate."
"Now then, the theological validity of Mormonism’s version of Christianity is beyond my competence and my interest. To many, the implications of a President embracing that creed are of concern."
"However, American public life and her high-level politics have created indicators that Mormons will not kidnap America and replace its system with their theocracy."]
"...Mormons will not kidnap America and replace its system with their theocracy."]
Most likely not.
But is that why many would be concerned over voting for Romney?
Aside from Romney's Mormonism many question whether he is a valid conservative.
But back to the Mormonism.
It is most likely not out of a concern that America's democracy would be subverted , but perhaps instead, indirectly helping to legitimise a cult religion that is the cruxt of concern for many.
Handlery concludes his article with this:
["...What matters to me now that a Mormon has become a candidate for the Presidency is that, the faith not only teaches values, its adherents live by them."
"Good Mormons work hard, try to measure up to constructive norms, and are reliable. That amounts to a strategy that results in worldly achievement."
"Even so, being a Mormon is a bad rationale to elect someone. However, LDS membership does not amount to a reasonable or a fair reason to deny such person one's vote...."]
"However, LDS membership does not amount to a reasonable or a fair reason to deny such person one's vote...."
Perhaps the reason why Handlery adapts that view is because of what else he wrote:
["Now then, the theological validity of Mormonism’s version of Christianity is beyond my competence and my interest."]
That's the problem Driscol puts a spotlight on:
In his blog article "Is Mormonism a cult?", Mark Driscol noted the following:
["... but in that it, Mormonism] claims Christianity while subtly subverting it in both practice and theology."
"Because it claims to be Christian, uses Christian language, but is antithetical Christianity, it must be labeled a cult theologically. "
"Of course, the trouble is that most people are not Christians, do not understand the differences between Mormon and Christian doctrine, and are therefore confused or upset to hear Mormonism labelled a cult, as it simply sounds cruel."
"What makes matters even worse is when presumably orthodox Christian leaders add to the confusion by essentially declaring Mormonism as a new form of Christianity."
"While it is understandable that the average non-Christian, and many Christians, don’t understand the ways in which Mormonism uses Christian terms while importing them into non-Christian meaning, it’s incumbent for Christian leaders to act like shepherds and warn the sheep about the wolves."
["... but in that it, Mormonism] claims Christianity while subtly subverting it in both practice and theology."]
Most Christians that are informed and studied about Mormonism, probably don't think Mormons are out to subvert American democracy. But rather Christianity.
To that end, would the election of a Mormon to be President help to legitimise the Mormon cult?