Obviously I'm no fan of Mitt Romney. But I have been very dismayed at the tone of the Republican primary so far, in which an explicit religious test has been so central to many voters — even to the extent that Romney was asked whether he believed the Bible literally. For cryin' out loud, we're talking about President, not Dean of the Seminary. Mitt, of course, has heretofore barely challenged the premise of such questions, since he's trying to appeal to Christian Right voters.
Romney finally confronted the whole issue today. And it's a peculiar speech, striking roughly the right tone in some places, but leaving intact the false choices that are slowing down his own campaign:
Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
… Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree. [ed. emphasis)
(The irony of the highlighted line is, I assume, not lost on anyone.)
So, he's plainly modeling his speech after JFK's in 1960. However, what's missing is Kennedy's explicit declaration of religion “as a private affair”:
I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
It is foolish, futile, and undesirable to expect that politicians will be somehow unaffected by their faiths in crafting public policy. For many or most people, their faith is the grounding of their sense of morality, both public and private. But I have been troubled by the willingness of politicians to tout their religious faith as a supposed qualification for office. Even Howard Dean has made clumsy attempts to appeal to evangelicals on religious grounds.
It is not hard to find religious people who are absolutely rotten, or just mediocre. Christianity (particularly Protestantism) rejects “justification” through good works. Faith proves nothing: a public profession of faith in a political campaign is worthless.
It's disappointing, then, to see Romney continue to sell the idea that we still need more public religion:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
…
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation “under God” and in God, we do indeed trust.
I suspect that this language will go over well with most people. And I don't feel too strongly about “ceremonial” religious expression: What's the big deal about “under God” or a public menorah? Pretty small stuff, all in all. But the fact is that such public religious displays are controversial these days precisely because they are not universally held. Our society is pluralistic, and Romney's plea for tolerance is simply not 100% compatible with specific public displays of religion.
As Romney and JFK both state: Values are universal. Religious doctrines are political in a broad sense of the word, subject to similar kinds of cleavages as are manifest in public elections. (Look at the Nicene Creed in light of the theological struggles of the time: It is as political a document as they come.) But it's a very bad direction, having God-talk and professions of faith take the spotlight in the Presidential campaign. It's bad for both religion and the state, because of the necessary hypocrisy of reconciling religious humility and reaching for worldly power.
Here's one notable commentator on public professions of faith:
5“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
PS: I should add that many faith-based groups appeal to broadly shared values using religious language. I think that's totally within bounds. “Let justice roll down like mighty waters”, for instance.
Charley – I would only say that there are moe varieties of ‘Protestantism’ than there are herbs and spices in a bottle of Heinz A-1 sauce. Faith, Grace and Works can be found in virtually every combination and proportion, one certain to fit you. Somewhere.
<
p>And before you call Mitt a hypocrite for praying on a street corner, pause and consider how often various news commentators have asked, twisted and goaded him on the subject. Even the National Review asked if he wore ‘magic underwear’, a question no media outlet has asked Harry Reid. It is sad that The Speech had to be made in this day and age, but now Mitt can point to it and say – Asked and Answered.
he could just repeatedly cite that passage from Matthew and refuse to discuss religion any further, now couldn’t he? he chooses not to put a lid on religious talk, because the fundy vote is his bread and butter, and they want to hear god dribbling from his mouth.
<
p>the real question in the non-LDS evangelical mind isn’t “will willard do the bidding of LDS leaders”. no, the real question in their minds is “will he place our bidding first”. it’s a power struggle, pure and simple.
you do your arguments better service by just remaining silent in response, rather than making these pathetic attempts to divert the conversation away from the painful truth.
…pointed out above pointing the finder to Harry Reid is a mere diversionary tactic. But it brings up again an opportunity to point out that candidates/politicians are largely responsible for framing their media personality by the way the frame their campaigns. Mr. Romney has been courting the Christian vote and centralizing faith and religion in his public life since before he announced his candidacy. He made his religious beliefs a central topic in his campaign before anyone else did. I am unaware of Sen. Reid taking a similar tact. I don’t live in Nevada so I don’t have as much first hand information as I would like, but in all the reading that I have done I have not gotten the impression that he is a “faith based” candidate.
<
p>Mr. Romney can’t have it both ways. If he wants to appeal to people’s Christianity he must be prepared to accept that those people may not find his Chritianity appealing.
<
p>And if the press ask about it? Well, he is the one that started the ball rolling in the first place, isn’t he?
“Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life and a great family and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice, and helping people, and even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.”
<
p>Thank you South Park
they were “salty chocolate balls”. well, no matter.
<
p>i like the attitude in your faux speech. however, no mormon could make that speech in it;s entirety because mormonism is not a religion tolerant of other beliefs. they are 1) evangelical, 2) they convert dead people into their religion, which is the most disrespectful sort of corpse-meddling i can imagine, and 3) they have worked hard against certain segments of society rather than “being nice” to them. women (equal rights amendment) and gays (every legal aspect of life) come to mind; 4) they ostracize former-mormons in the most horrid way from social contact with their families. it’s a zero tolerance policy. so much for “family” and “being nice”. it’s a good spiel tho.
With the exception of the necro-conversion, everything you wrote could possibly be applied to Catholics. Cardinal O’Malley recently, and stupidly, excoriated church members who vote Democrat.
<
p>And yet…I’m catholic. These statements do not apply to me.
i make fact-based observations of a religion’s practices? you just did the same with the RCC. are you calling yourself intolerant too?
<
p>i am glad that these statements don’t apply to you. but i would question why you would want to support an organization to which they do apply. that organization has worked actively to make my civil life hell. what do you expect me to say when you present these facts?
What would you, or what DO you, say to people from other countries who accuse you personally of being an imperial, militant stooge hellbent on world domination?
<
p>Something along the lines of, “Hey, I’m just an American, and while I support the ideals of my country, I don’t always agree with what its leaders say,” I would imagine.
citizenship is not something a person can easily change. support for a church organization is. as a religious person, you can leave the church proper if you so desire and still be religious, a believer, etc.. you must know that citizenship doesn’t work that way. just ask tom tancredo!
It isn’t like that at all. There is a tremendous amount of family, tradition, and culture bound up in one’s religion. It isn’t something one chooses, as if it were a political party, and from which one can simply withdraw when you don’t like a plank.
i’m proof. i come from a long line of baptist ministers, missionaries and evangelists. these include my parents, aunts and uncles and grandparents. i don’t share their beliefs and they know it. they’re sad at that fact, but they love me all the same. our family is as strong as ever because we respect each other. they know that family is mutual love and respect, not toeing a particular religious line. in fact to them, if you don’t actively choose to believe, then your belief aint worth much more than romney’s hot air on womb-control.
<
p>again, one need not support a religious organization to be personally religious. if your religion is demanding that of you (as is the case with mormons, for example), then it is emotional blackmail. why would you agree to remain in such an institution? they don’t love you. they love your obedience.
But I’m not sure what it is. I think your original question was, how can I “support” an institution that makes your life “hell.”
<
p>My answer to that is that membership to a church does not reflect support of its policy. Whether or not I sit in the pew and listen to scripture will not affect Rome’s position on gay rights.
<
p>Further more, I consider myself a pretty smart guy. So, I think that no one knows what better for me than me. If I were to change churches everytime I disagreed with the biblical interpretation coming from the pulpit, I’d be doing a lot of church-hopping.
<
p>And this is typically where I simply part ways with my more zealous liberal breatheren. You guys would have me denounce my religion in the name of greater individual liberty for you. Which is fine for you, because you’re not theone giving up your religion. I decline your invitation to do so. I will remain the liberal (occassionally) in the back of the church continuing to vote Democratic, support gay rights and a woman’s right to choose. That way, maybe someday, through the perserverance of liberal church members, other liberals might be able to go back and listen to the Word of God without feeling like hypocrites.
<
p>Church membership does not automatically confer upon its members the political beliefs of the church hierarchy. Until you can accept that, I’m afraif your just as intolerant as your accusers.
membership to a church does not reflect support of its policy.
of course it does. by showing up, you are supporting the greater goals of the institution. i assume that you also drop money in the basket, which would be direct support.
<
p>I think that no one knows what better for me than me.
On this we agree completely. I’m not trying to make decisions for you personally. However, the church you support does not afford me the same respect.
<
p>my more zealous liberal breatheren. You guys…
I am speaking only on my own behalf. Don’t assume other liberals agree with me on this issue, or even that most of them are “zealots”. do you want me to lump you in with ratzinger-like catholics?
<
p>You guys would have me denounce my religion
NO NO NO! This is the most important point of misunderstanding between us. I am not asking you to denounce your religion. I am suggestign that you denounce the institution of the RCC. They are two different things. Perhaps this is not something easily understood by a RC. I was raised in the protestant tradition, where it is made abundantly clear that one’s personal religious belief can be independent of any religious organization. There is not rule in the bible stating that to be a christian, you have to belong to any particular religious infrastructure. I’m challenging you to see your beliefs and the RC infrastructure as separate things, because they are.
<
p>Church membership does not automatically confer upon its members the political beliefs of the church hierarchy.
I have no doubt about that, so please save your accusations of intolerance for the officials of your own church.
You are right that the institution and the religion are not the same thing, and that this notion is more prevalent among Protestants. Jesuits have been doing what you ask on other issues for centuries. Liberal theologians have been doing so with respect to the modern “hot button” issues–though likely in far more restrained language than you might like– for some time.
<
p>In the same way that our government does not, and has never, perfectly attained the ideals set to words by Thomas Jefferson, so the institutional church does not, and has never, attained the ideals set to words in the Gospel.
<
p>I disagree that this is a reason, however, to leave, but instead will remain, will be from time to time angered by this or that position taken by an official, and will use what little leverage I have to advocate for change over time.
<
p>I therefore redirect certain funds–funds are the little leverage that I have– that I would have donated to the Diocese (as opposed to that used for the upkeep of the facilities operated by my parish) to a soup kitchen operated by the Paulist Center in Boston. When asked, I am candid about why I choose not to donate to among other thinsg, the Bishop’s Appeal.
membership to a church does not reflect support of its policy.
<
p>of course it does. by showing up, you are supporting the greater goals of the institution. i assume that you also drop money in the basket, which would be direct support.
<
p>No, the first statement is correct, especially if your church is the United Church of Christ. The UCC is a broad collection of people and local churches that run the length of the theological spectrum, while the institution tends to be liberal there ae plenty of conservatives among us. A church is an extended family and people come to explore faith together and give to help mission. I must emphatically reject any notion that belonging to a church implies anything about ones particular views.
so you are actually agreeing with me. from my point of view, one of the greatest goals of the RCC is obedience. why else the top-down system? i am delighted if the greater goals of the UCC are the gentler ones you name. taking them at face value, they are commendable.
FRom some people’s perspective, the greater goal of the Democratic Party is to nationalize the means of production in order to usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat. FRom some people’s perspective, the greater goal of the GOP is to get everyone to accept JC as their personal savior, while returning non-Caucasions to a condition of chattel slavery.
<
p>Others’ perspective is different.
Well, like Laurel, I’m not speaking for any other zealous liberals, though I think my positions are, by most people’s lights, pretty far left. I don’t want you to denounce your religion in the name of greater individual liberty for me, I want you to denounce your religion in the name of greater individual liberty for you — but while I’ll happily argue with you in favor of atheism, I’m also not about to try to tell you you have to reject Catholicism, and I disagree with Laurel that membership in the church implies agreement with and support for all its positions.
<
p>If you’re not about to see reason and become an atheist, and you disagree with some subset of the Catholic church’s positions, I think it probably behooves you to do what you feel you reasonably can to encourage change in those positions, but again, I’m pretty sure that I, as a non-Catholic with no authority in the church, don’t get to tell you whether or not to remain a Catholic.
<
p>This is sort of tangential to the main discussion, but when people start attacking “zealous liberals,” I tend to think, “hey, I resemble that remark!” 🙂
Perhaps that was the case for you. Based on what I know about you from your posting here, plus what you have revealed in this comment, I do not envy what was likely your experience with religion.
<
p>My elder sister chose as you did, though for what I imiagine were different reaqsons, and I do not fault her. I nearly did the same–my oldest child was not baptized until nearly the age of 3, which is very late, because I was deciding. I eventually chose to stay, even though I disagree with the leadership of my church on certain issues, because the reasons I cited in my earlier comment outweigh those disagreements.
i’m not sure what you assume were my reasons for not being religious. if you are assuming that it had anything to do with me being gay, it didn’t. long before i had a clue about sexual orientation, i knew that the religious stuff i was being taught made no sense to me, and that i never had any sense of any mystical great power. and i wasn’t afraid enough of anything to will myself to have “faith” in something i had absolutely no evidence for just for a feeling of security. i am quite fortunate that my parents let me make my own decisions once i became a teen. they preferred honesty to sham obedience.
I’m glad that what I imagined was not the case. I apologize and withdraw the remark.
Laurel was not using the word “ostracize” figuratively, for example.
I’ve never had someone come up to me and try to convert me to RCC. Born again Christians, on the other hand…
<
p>For that matter, the RCC and it’s members simply don’t “ostracize former-[Catholics] in the most horrid way from social contact with their families.” I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s quite rare. Mormons, on the other hand, are much tougher on those who leave their faith.
That was taken verbatim from a South Park episode.
<
p>Here’s my shorter version for Mitt.
<
p>”Yes, I’m a Mormon. Don’t like it? Then kiss my Latter-Day ass.”
<
p>Feel free to respond to that in as sanctimonious a way as possible.
But I’ll leave my sanctimonious response stand even so. After all, willard didn’t follow the South Park path, did he? More’s the pity, becasue as i said above, i liked the attitude behind what you wrote.
They should have checked their grammar
<
p>Look, maybe us Mormons…
<
p>Should have been Look, maybe we Mormons…
<
p>Is that sanctimonious enough? 😉
Well, that was certainly a muddled mess, a portmanteau filled with this, that and the other. Captain Brylcreem, as I am wont to call him, didn’t do what was necessary to convince South Carolinians and similar wingers.
<
p>The audience was in the yawn mode, giving tepid responses. His only sustained approval was in the last minute, with we’re-a-great-country and God-(the divine author as he sponged it)-bless us.
<
p>Sorry, Cap’n, a couple of vague and passing mentions of Mormonism after avoiding it for the first third of the speech doesn’t cut it. Kennedy it it many times better.
<
p>The Cap’n was reduced to throwing in one loosely linked mention of our history, our democratic ideals, and our guarantees of religious freedom after another. After initial copy-JFK remarks about not letting his church run his presidency, he fired one shot here, another there, and brought home no game.
has anyone posted a video of the speech?
have you no faith that this Great Man of Faith will finally melt my glacial heart with his words of self promotion?
<
p>or rather, if my computer exploded, your prayers would finally be answered. so why are you hiding the link? is it that embarrassing?
…there will be weeping gnashing of teeth.
“A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”
<
p>This from someone who repeatedly tries to equate Obama with the Muslim faith in an attempt to discredit him.
Romney also seems a lot more interested in other people being tolerant of his religion, than in being tolerant of other religions himself.
I’ve listened to the speech, and the major assumption it is built on is that we Americans are all religious people. Well, that is, of course, not true. But Romney apparently is raising an ugly religious test of his own for all Americans: are you religious? Romney carefully excludes non-believers like me from his “Our America”. I find it chilling.
Laurel is more correct than she realizes. Indeed, Mitt does favor a religious test. A simple test that excludes someone who doesn’t have faith.
<
p>I’ve posted the video before of a fundamentalist heckling Romney for not knowing Jesus Christ. Romney responds:
<
p>
<
p>This is a great video because it exposes a view held by the not insignificant hard line Christians that Huckabee, et al pander to and it exposes Mitt’s belief (or it shows Mitt pandering to the belief) that there should be a de facto religious test for the presidency.
…I’d prefer someone who can be trusted to lead the country.
<
p>Faith be damned. David Koresh had faith.
In today’s speech he stated that “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”. The message is very clear.
<
p>Also, then only religions he mentioned were the Abrahamic big 3. Apparently part of the test is to believe in his particular god (at the moment, this is the one in the sky, not the one in the wallet).
I’ve spent the last few minutes trying to articulate my response to that statement. The only thing I can say is that this statement is utterly asinine.
oil and water, near as I can tell.
<
p>it’s all rules, rules, rules. telling you to believe this and act like that.
<
p>there’s really not much freedom to do or interpret. they take care of all of that for you. just read, listen and obey.
<
p>baaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
If you’re a Republican, nothing is more important than oil. Religion is the shiny distraction for the voters while you’re creeping for the oil money.
… the particulars of Willard’s assertions, but it should be pointed out that “test” has multiple meanings here. To say that there should be qualifications for a president is also a “test”. Such qualifications come in two basic forms… those legal qualifications (“tests”) necessary to legally hold office, and those qualifications I personally require in order for me to feel comfortable granting my vote to someone.
<
p>We can claim as outrageous any religious test assertion of the former type as a matter of law and the principals of our constitution. We can claim as outrageous any religious test assertion of the latter type as matters of opinion. Problem is, his assertion may be more (again, I haven’t checked for myself) of the latter type, but much of the criticism has been directed as if it were the former type.
<
p>I think the important thing that I take away from this is that any religious test of personal opinion may be valid. The religious assertions of a candidate can reveal some of the values of the candidate (as can their assertions of a religious test). In effect, Willard is saying that he can’t imagine a candidate that wasn’t Christian who shared enough of his values for him to justify voting for them. I think either he is an idiot or his values are idiotic, but its a valid position (valid in form but wrong on premises). Do I have a religious test? Personally I’d like to see an atheist. Is it a deal breaker? Of course not. I certainly acknowledge that a candidate’s religious views are important (to me, not to the constitution), but the weight I give to any particular characteristics, including religious views, of a candidate can run the gamut. For someone to claim being a Christian is a potential deal breaker (which he is saying by implication) is a deal breaker for me because of what it says about his opinions on pluralism.
<
p>”Test” in this context refers to a “test oath.” The “Test” clause is in the “oath or affirmation” paragraph of Article VI. What that is essentially saying is that the prescribed oath or affirmation required to assume office cannot include a provision to swear fealty to a particular religion.
<
p>That does not, however, mean that voters are forbidden from considering a candidates religion (or lack thereof) when deciding whether to vote for him or her. Nor does it mean that an official cannot consider a prospective appointee’s religion, or lack thereof, when deciding whether or not to make the appointment.
” ‘Test’ in this context refers to a ‘test oath.’ “
<
p>What do you mean by ‘this context’? It seems you are referencing the legal/constitutional context in your first paragraph.
<
p>In the legal context advocating such a test can be illegal or unconstitutional without law or constitutional changes. In the personal context it is just one of many (however repugnant) tests anyone can (and do) have for their particular choosing of a candidate to support.
<
p>All I was pointing out was that these two contexts are often confused when discussion what Willard said.
<
p>I was also wondering in which of these contexts Willard made the assertion. Many seem to be assuming the former, which is much much more objectionable in my opinion, but I haven’t seen anything to confirm that.
<
p>Each context provides a profoundly different meaning (and different basis for objection) to the statement. I’d find reason to object to either context, but for many the second context may make the assertion legitimate or at least much less objectionable.
refers to the constitutional provision.
<
p>As I mentioned, anyone can take the candidate’s or potential appointee’s religion in account in determining whether or not to vote or appoint him or her.
… Its just that my question of ‘what was the context meant’ was to indicate that I didn’t think it was clear. Your comment asserted the constitutional context. Is there clear evidence that Willard meant this context and not the other?
I have no idea whether or not Mitt understands the difference.
<
p>I have written here not long ago that I probably would have voted for his father, George. George was also a Mormon. It isn’t an issue of religion, it’s an issue of trust. I’ve worked with Mormons, and I find many if not most of them to have been honorable people. Not Mitt.
<
p>I would not vote for Mitt because I do not trust him. Not because he is a Mormon. Mitt reminds me of a used car salesman: kick the tires. If you don’t like those tires, I’ll bring up another car whose tires you might like. That is exactly what Mitt did in 1994, in 2002, and what he’s doing now in his presidential campaign. Kick the tires, let’s just get the sale completed. That is Mitt.
… to be as inconsistent as necessary to secure what he wants.
<
p>Seriously though, I get what you are saying raj. What I was pointing out wasn’t directed at anyone in particular. I’m just an advocate for an intellectually honest discussion, and as such, wanted to sharpen our understanding of the terrain of terms while we maneuver. I spotted and ambiguity and pointed it out is all.
Not just any religious people, but that all Americans are Christian (preferably), Jewish or (a distant third — note how the best think he can think of to say is “they sure do pray a lot”) Muslim. Non-“big 3” religion? Polytheist? Animist? Hindu? Buddhist? Nope, sorry, guys, you’re just as unAmerican as the atheists.
<
p>Balkin’s take is, as usual, spot on.
To me, “person of faith” has always been a code word for Christian. I think people who use the abstract idea “person of faith” should be forced to define the term.
<
p>The term “person of faith” casts such a wide net in my mind – it could mean devout Catholic, practicing Jew, or weak agnostic. And what if I have faith that chopping kittens’ heads off will bring health and prosperity to the United States? Does that make men a person of faith? Does it better qualify me for the office of the presidency? It’s not such an absurd question when one considers there are manypeople of faith who practice folk religions like Voodoo, Hoodoo, and Santaria.
<
p>The point is that there is clearly a hierarchy in the “person of faith” category. Most would be willing to admit that Desmond Tutu is better “person of faith” than 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta. This distinction may be black and white, but what exactly are the parameters? When someone like Mitt Romney or even an undecided voter says that this country needs a person of faith as a leader, do they include the animal sacrifice people, too?
<
p>Or are they bigots who want a person of their faith as president? It’s time we demand that this term is defined.
<
p>…I might have voted for George Romney. He was a Mormon, too. He had been head of American Motors (remember them?) and apparently was a pretty decent governor of Michigan.
<
p>I’d never vote for Mitt, and I don’t care what his religion is. He hornswaggled the voters of Massachusetts, flipping this way and flopping that. And he bamboozled the federal and Utah state taxpayers into saving his 2002 Winter Olympics.
<
p>BTW, something that might be of interest to some people here: Recovery From Mormonism http://www.exmormon.org/
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his ecclesiastical colleagues in the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s brought the Christian gospel to the public square to illustrate how Americans, particularly Christian American politicans and the ordained Protestant mainline clergy, were not living up to either the ideals of the Christian gospel or the egalitarian and liberty principles that were supposedly the political bedrock of our nation.
<
p>Indeed, King asserted that his “secular” civil rights activity was a natural, logical, and necessary extension of his ministry. Here’s are the Dr. King’s words expressed during the period of the Montgomery bus boycott campaign:
<
p>
<
p>It would be a mischaracterization of King and his Christian colleagues in the civil rights movement to claim that he merely used “religious language” or Biblical imagery to express support to “broadly shared values.” What made the pleas of King and his colleagues so powerful, in many Christians’ hearts and minds, is that he connected his civil rights activity to the Christian gospel in a spiritually powerful and public way that moved millions of Americans to reconsider their views about race, civil rights, and justice in America.
<
p>Today, a surprisingly broad range of evangelicals have signed and publicly advocated on behalf of Congressional legislation to advance the Evangelical Climate Initiative. This document explicitly references religious principles gleaned from the New Testament (Sermon on the Mount) and the Old Testament (Genesis) to call for political action on climate change and global warming. Given the powerful corporate interests arrayed against climate change legislation, it would be politically counterproductive and legally untable, for progressives to try to bar or decry the powerful religious arguments being offered by religious citizens on behalf of this contemporary form of environmentalism.
<
p>Finally, I would give Romney’s speech a B-. In my view, he had a responsibility to call out by name those political and religious leaders who are using appeals to religious intolerance to undermine his presidential campaign and draw more clearly the historical parallels to similar bigoted religious campaigns waged against JFK in 1960 and Democrat Al Smith in 1928. Shame is a wonderful equalizer in life.
John Kennedy merely had to say that he was a Catholic second, and an American first.
<
p>Romney had to say that he was a Mormon first, and a non-Mormon first. Impossible to do.
for the Republican Party by Karl Rove to be broken, and a conservative party to grow in its place.
… it would have been without the hand-picked audience and complete lack of questions.
<
p>Kennedy took some quite hard questions after the speech from the audience.
Sir, Mike Huckabee is no Jack Kennedy.
in a nutshell: Romney asserts the hegemony of religion (“faith”), then smoothly makes an understated pitch to include Mormonism as a legitimate member of that hegemony.
<
p>The first assertion is popular (indeed nearly untouchable) in American politics today. What’s more debatable in Romney’s formulation is the familiar juxtaposition of religion with “secular humanism,” which he describes as another religion in disguise (yet one that, paradoxically, has no place in the hegemony).
<
p>That is, he joins the culture wars and attacks the special status of enlightenment thinking as apart from, and legitimately critical of, religion. This ought to be popular with Red voters, but it serves a second purpose too.
<
p>His bid for acceptance of Mormonism into the club is based in part on this attack on “secular humanism.” The whole “enemy-of-my-enemy-is my friend” thing seems particularly suited to the fundamentalist mentality.
<
p>The other part of his play for acceptance is how gosh-darn mainstream he actually is, with his hair and teeth and his family. How non-threatening, if you will. It’s good theater and likely can carry many folks past the more oddball (by fundamentalist standards) tenets of his faith.
<
p>I don’t know how well he succeeded with the acceptance part, but he didn’t hurt himself that I can see. Those who point out, with some truth, that Romney can’t really square his Mormonism with the exacting standards of the fundamentalists he are trying to win over are, I think, giving that base too much credit for consistency.
<
p>Finally, did anyone note the bonus shot? The speak was at the Bush library and was partly addressed to GHW himself. Some body english to suggust to the non-wingnut wing of the party that he is open to slithering back their way after the convention.
<
p>To quote another fake governor: Mission Accomplished.
The Friends of Wayne Dumond appear to have bought Mitt Romney’s speech.
There’s three or four comments praising the speech. And one doubter:
Who is promptly smacked down by another freeper:
Mitt’s in the Club. He’s got the money, and he’ll get enough evangelical voters now. He’s going to be the nominee.
that this is a mighty impressive discussion thread. Important, big-picture, emotional topic with people of widely divergent viewpoints engaged in a respectful, thoughtful, and enlightening discussion. Kudos to all. If only the broader political discourse were so civilized!
It’s also providing a glimpse at some personal experiences that offer a fuller understanding of the people behind the handles. Less bombast, more effort to articulate = much more enjoyable lurking. Must be the ‘holiday season’….
How many times have we heard the political religious right attacking, ot the point of boycotts, retail outlets for using the term “holiday season” or “happy holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas”? Well, look what their panderer in chief just said in The Speech today
“Holiday Season?” So what does this mean exactly? It’s ok for public religionists to ignore The Reason For The Season, but not the retailers who they make favorable laws for? Does not compute. Does not compute.