Salt Lake City--Some Local Thoughts on the Election

I've been in the wonderful town of Salt Lake City for the last week.  I must say that of all the larger cities in America (or Europe, or Africa) that I've visited, Salt Lake is by far the cleanest.  The streets are wide, and, although I've been in the downtown section of town, I think I've seen about one cop all week.

I've been on the light rail, and it's clean.  The hotel I've been in has a wonderful, helpful staff.  Everyone has been really nice.  The setting of the town is amazing with mountains in just about every direction you can look.  To the east are the snow-capped Wasatch Mountains, even though it's been around 85 degrees all week (another plus is the dry air--no sweating, even after walking about half-a-mile to the convention center).  Salt Lake hosted the Olympics a few years ago (2002).  I have little bad to say about the city as far as cities go.

The Mormon Temple--A Large Wall Encompasses Much of the Property

From a religious historian's point of view, however, it is quickly apparent that the LDS are still quite important in town, although not as all-encompassing as I might have earlier thought.  In one discussion, I found that the majority of town is not Mormon.  The importance of Mormonism to the town's history is evident in that the town's street grid is centered not upon the state capitol building, but on the Mormon Temple.  A couple of my historian friends were going to the Temple's genealogy center to do some research since we had an afternoon free today.  I didn't, but I did take a couple of pictures of the Temple grounds, which was only a block from the Salt Palace.

The Salt Lake Tribune had a couple of articles related to Mitt Romney's religion and the presidential campaign this year.  The first argued that his run was a positive and negative for the LDS.  They are looking at this as a "chance to clarify and educate" people regarding the religion.  Of course, the article concedes that questions regarding the status of African Americans and a polygamous past will come up in any discussion.  One wonders if Mountain Meadows or some other negative events in the church's history will also come up.

Note Moroni at the Top of the Temple

Apparently, some Mormons were concerned earlier this year about persecution if Romney won the nomination (LDS "Apostle" David Bednar).  Apparently, Mitt's Mormonism is not a big issue to many that had a problem a few years ago, however.   As we get closer to the election, we shall see if the Mormon question affect's Romney's bid.  Of course, President Obama's tie to liberation theology is not much closer to traditional orthodoxy, either.  Therefore, the place of religion in the election, especially among evangelicals who voted for people like Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush precisely because of their affirmation of evangelicalism, will be interesting to watch.

Religion and the North Dakota Caucus

Tuesday was a fairly big day in American politics.  It was that wonderful day during the primary season known as Super Tuesday.  Ten states held presidential primaries or caucuses to award delegates for the upcoming Republican convention.  Throughout my life, I've lived in a state that had a primary.  I've voted in primaries for both parties because I've lived in two counties that had different majority parties.  Those who did not register with the majority party basically had no one to vote for in the primary election, so I based my affiliation accordingly.

North Dakota handles things a bit differently than my home state of West Virginia, however.  They hold presidential caucuses, rather than presidential primaries.  Since Barack Obama is running unopposed, the Republicans were the only party holding a caucus this time.  I decided to go, so that I could appease my curiosity as to how these things really work.  I'd heard rumors about how the Iowa caucuses had people forming groups and then trying to get other people in the room to join their group to support a given candidate (after reading a bit--it didn't work that way this year in Iowa).  To my dismay, it was not quite so exciting. 

One major difference between primaries and caucuses is the party presence.  Primary elections are partisan, but are generally controlled by the state government and its election laws.  The caucus was put on by the party.  That being said, however, no official party registration was necessary to enter the caucus--just a proof of North Dakota residency with an actual street address.  After checking in, voters were given a registration form.  This form was filled out in a room with a podium and several tables with food and several tables with chairs for filling out the forms.  The tables with chairs had all manner of party paraphernalia supporting either Ron Paul or Rick Santorum (sorry, Mitt and Newt).  This type of advertising is generally illegal within a certain distance primary elections.

This is where the religious element came into play.  The meeting opened with the pledge of allegiance, and then a (historically debatable) prayer.  I personally found this very interesting.  I like talking politics, but I've never actually attended a political rally, partially because of my personal lack of affinity for any major party currently operating in American life.  To actually see a party have a prayer in a country that claims separation of church and state was interesting.  Of course, there is always a prayer at the presidential inauguration and other official events.  I would've liked to have gone to a Democratic caucus to see if a similar prayer (similarly debatable historically) would've been offered.  I would've liked to have gone to a Republican caucus in a not-so-midwestern or Bible Belt state to see if something similar would have happened.  After the prayer was a stump speech by a local radio (I think) personality pushing for Rick Santorum.  Apparently these guys for Santorum were successful--he won the North Dakota caucuses.

Many people have questioned the invocation of God in the public square.  Apparently it doesn't matter when the party is in charge of an event, even if they get their history slightly wrong in their prayer.  I do have to question tying God to a particular political party.  Regardless, American church history and American political history have frequently intersected, in spite of arguments to the contrary.

PS--the historically debatable portion of the prayer had to do with talking about a nation founded on liberty, equality, and justice.  This is both a true and false statement.  For land-owning white men (i.e., the people who mattered in the eighteenth century), America was founded on liberty, equality, and justice.  These qualities just did not extend beyond that demographic.  For poor white men who were serving indentures, Africans who were enslaved, and Indians who were run off of their land, this statement is definitely debatable (i.e., erroneous).  While Americans have definitely been blessed and fortunate throughout the decades, I have trouble believing God was impressed with that part of American history.

9-16-2001 A Date that "Changed" America

As we near the 10th anniversary of 9/11, today the front page of USA today had a an article by Rick Hampson titled "After 9/11: 50 Dates that Quietly Changed America."  I turned to the inward pages of the first section of this paper (which  I get for free with my student ID).  I wondered how many of these 50 dates had to deal with American religion, in general, and American Christianity, in particular.

Only one of the dates had much to do with American Christianity.  That date was 9/16/2001.  The particular event was said to be important because it nearly derailed President Obama's election bid.  The event was the somewhat (in)famous sermon by Obama's then-minister Jeremiah Wright that questioned America's righteousness and race relations in some fairly colorful language, saying "America's chickens are coming home to roost," among other things.  The president was not in the congregation on that day, but many questioned his relationship to someone that many considered a radical.  Wright has obviously been very controversial since this sermon came into the public light during the campaign...however... 

In spite of the controversy that this event caused, I would question the importance of this date in "quietly changing America," because Obama was nevertheless elected president in spite of the sermon.  Had this particular sermon led to John McCain's election, it would be noteworthy.  But it didn't, so it did not "change" America in any meaningful way.