“What kind of city should Salt Lake be? … A celestial city or a cosmopolitan city? A city that reflects the values of one particular social group or the value of pluralism, which is fundamental to the American experience? The latter option is more economically viable, and, more importantly, interesting.” — David Richard Keller, associate professor of philosophy at Orem’s Utah Valley State College and director of the Center for the Study of Ethics, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 2, 2007

Once again, concerns about Salt Lake City’s “religious divide” have emerged as the mayoral campaigns ramp up for the final stretch. The economic stakes are enormous, according to the Tribune, considering the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ potential presence in the billion-dollar City Creek downtown development.

Money excerpt:

To a person, the top candidates reject any notion of being lapdogs for or pit bulls against the LDS Church. Only one, Dave Buhler, is an active Mormon. Jenny Wilson and Keith Christensen call themselves LDS, but not active, while Ralph Becker is a nonpracticing Episcopalian.

So far, the candidates are doing their diplomatic best not to fan any flames over faith. But as the LDS Church’s influence expands in an otherwise-secular downtown, voters may wonder whether the next mayor could ever say no to the church.

The issue is inescapable in city politics. Last month, Keith Christensen took exception to his profile in the Deseret News in which reporter Doug Smeath wrote: “Keith Christensen is fighting a battle of images in his campaign for Salt Lake City mayor, caught between the picture he paints of himself as an experienced business and civic leader and another image he’s trying to shake — Mormon and Republican — that pundits see as a liability in Salt Lake City politics.

He used to be both Mormon and Republican. Now, he’s neither.”

Six days later, the News published Christensen’s response in which he emphasized his pride in being a member of the state’s dominant religious faith and eschewed “mean-spirited whispers,” adding:

“All that being said, I believe that religion should not play a role in the mayoral race nor in the mayor’s office. In the darker recesses of human nature, there is a tendency toward an ‘us vs. them’ mentality. It is destructive and difficult to combat, but it can be done. It is time to move beyond the religious divide and come together, robust in our diversity, but unified as a community.”

One might see this small incident as another sign of the impenetrable divide. Keller, quoted above, believes it has grown. Meanwhile, a colleague of his – David Knowlton, a sociocultural anthropologist, thinks the “divide” is exaggerated. Rather, the tensions are a result of ethnogenesis played against the background of diverse immigrant communities blending into the broader Mormon population: “We’re like a family — that’s an important blending point. The odd persons out are those who do not stem from this kin. So it’s not just Mormons and non-Mormons. I would argue it must be Mormons, outsiders, and former Mormons, as well as non-Mormons who are part of that former Mormon community. It is less the religious issue that is important than the common family structure.”

In some respects, these tensions are not unique to Salt Lake City. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted a national survey in the summer of 2006 that reflected the complex, compartmentalized views Americans have about the interface of religion and politics. A few highlights exemplify the general unease which dominates this issue:

Fully 69% of Americans say that liberals have gone too far in keeping religion out of schools and government. But the proportion who express reservations about attempts by Christian conservatives to impose their religious values has edged up in the past year, with about half the public (49%) now expressing wariness about this.

The Democratic Party continues to face a serious “God problem,” with just 26% saying the party is friendly to religion. However, the proportion of Americans who say the Republican Party is friendly to religion, while much larger, has fallen from 55% to 47% in the past year, with a particularly sharp decline coming among white evangelical Protestants (14 percentage points)

Most Americans (59%) continue to say that religion’s influence on the country is declining, and most of those who express this view believe that this is a bad thing. The public is more divided on the question of whether religion’s influence on government is increasing (42%) or decreasing (45%). And in contrast to views of religion’s influence on the country, most of those who think that religion is increasing its influence on government leaders and institutions view this as a bad thing.

Hardly clarifying, eh?