Nina Easton, of the Boston Globe (and recently of Fox News, too), writes a preposterous column today about Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's religion (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) and the electorate. She raises the question of resistance by Christian evangelical Christians to a possible Romney presidential campaign.

Liberal Northeastern moral vanity has rarely been displayed more prominently. Cluelessness about conservative Christians lethally combines with a vastly inflated self—image common to liberals, to make this column almost a parody.

Ms. Easton apparently believes that evangelicals and other conservative Christians require theological agreement from their politicians, unaware, perhaps, of the enthusiastic support such groups show to politicians of all faiths who support their political aims. I have never, for example, heard an evangelical Protestant express reservations about voting for Catholic politician on the basis of doctrinal disagreement. Issues such as abortion, support for Israel (a Jewish state which rejects the divinity of Christ), family values, and other political matters seem to matter far more than doctrinal harmony.

It is a common phenomenon that deeply religious people of different faiths respect one another, but are on the receiving end of contempt directed at them from the non—religious. I would wager that many of the Globe's secular, liberal, affluent readers harbor contempt for LDS. Certainly more so than most evangelicals.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is, after all, a faith that was made in America. Its adherents don't smoke or drink, have lots of kids (which makes them breeders, as the sneer goes), believe in America, and are...there is no other word...square. The type of people endlessly mocked by the liberal elites.

The article uses the proper name of the Church just once, at the beginning of the article. Throughout, it uses the word 'Mormon' — a usage which grates on many LDS ears. I know this because I know a number of LDS members. It is just a guess, but I imagine that Nina Easton numbers among her friends with whom she can discuss anything about the same number of LDS and pro—life activists: zero.

I am not and never will be interested in changing my faith. But I take the LDS very seriously, and have had the rare honor of visiting a new LDS Temple before it was consecrated (and then off limits to us gentile non—LDS), have visited the Information Center in Salt Lake City, and generally paid attention to this faith and its adherents. They have earned my respect and admiration, and are arguably the very embodiment of the American Dream. Any student of the role of religion in public life must understand this important and rapidly—growing religion.

I believe that, like many of her readers, Ms. Easton projects onto evangelicals the faults she unconsciously fears in her own group.

And as for those evangelical voters, when faced with a choice between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, they will vote in overwhelming numbers for him.

Thomas Lifson   8 30 05