Reason, Religion and Fear

In 1960 John Kennedy went to Texas to talk to some Protestant pastors about what it means to be a Catholic. They were mostly Democrats but the reception was not a warm one, the reason being they were also white, male, conservative and on the brink of an historic political transformation.

People say passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act cost the Democrats the South but Kennedy's encounter in Houston may be seen as the real starting point of the realignment, based as much on religion and culture as on race, that forged the politics of late 20th century America.

To Southerners, Kennedy was an exotic. In his cool and cultured gaze was something even scarier than an alien theology: the future. He called America to a new frontier but Texans liked the old frontier, and the Old South. Eight weeks later many of the ministers voted for Nixon. Twelve years later, they all did.

I saw the speech recently on C-span. It's a remarkable artifact, as close to the bone as Kennedy ever got on film. In a lions' den of doubters, he talked about the separation of church and state and fielded fierce questions.

No one asked Kennedy about transubstantiation or why he ate fish on Fridays. He faced only two questions, phrased in various ways: would the Pope or some Cardinal tell him what to do? Would his government favor Catholics?

Fair questions, given the Church's keen interest in politics. You may recall the Holy Roman Empire; or more recent battles in Ireland over divorce and contraception; or in Latin America over social justice. Kennedy promised to be his own man and to respect all faiths.

Recently Mitt Romney went to Texas to talk to some Protestant politicians about what it means to be a Mormon, or so we thought. His speech mirrored Kennedy's in many particulars, but not in its purpose.

Romney's rich, handsome and smart but lacks Kennedy's wit and ease. He can seem patrician and superficial, even robotic, as if George Hamilton had gone to Choate. Though his audience was handpicked by his campaign he took no questions. He barely mentioned Mormonism, explaining that to do so would make him a spokesperson of his faith and thus violate the spirit of the Constitution.

Mormons have a number of striking beliefs; that American Indians are the lost tribes of Israel; that Jesus visited them here after he died and will meet up with them in Missouri at the end of the world; that God was once a man and lives in a distant solar system; that believers may become gods and rule other planets.

None of it is any of my business. It's amazing the people you meet who think every story but theirs is ridiculous. Some believe in the virgin birth and others in a heaven full of virgins. My own faith must strike some as odd, including especially the notion that anyone but me cares about my salvation.

But Latter Day Saints, like Catholics, take an interest in politics. The first Mormon to run for president was Joseph Smith, the first Mormon. From the start, his relations with government were rocky, even hostile. Vigilantes killed him before he had a chance to show the seriousness of his candidacy.

Some Mormon literature foresees the collapse of government. Mormon scripture foretells Mormon rule of North America and the world. How do Romney and other current Mormon leaders view these matters? I don't know.

I do know that when theology crosses over into politics, it's okay to ask.

We live in a time in which people with strong opinions about the end of time can influence foreign policy. It's fair to ask Romney the questions put to Kennedy: will your faith conflict with your duty? Will others, even non believers get a fair shake? Romney says separation of Church and state has gone too far. Inquiring minds want to know: What exactly does he find excessive?

Romney stands out even among politicians for the number and significance of positions switched; abortion, civil unions, assault weapons. Perhaps we needn't fear his over-devotion to any idea, political or religious. But whether he's too devoted to faith or too little devoted to the constitution the concern's the same; that one who offloads Roe v. Wade so casually might not have a bottom line.

Kennedy reassured evangelicals that though his faith was different from theirs he'd never impose it. Romney told them his faith wasn't so different and that in any event he'd be happy to help impose theirs. He dodged questions not out of respect for the constitution but out of fear that doctrinal differences would be too hard to bridge.

Kennedy bet on progress, reason and the constitution, in part because he had to. These ideals were overthrown by his death, by war and racial unease and by the inevitable dislocations of progress, among other things.

We've lived ever since in the chokehold of a backward politics that subverts democracy and religion and turns us against science and the world. There are signs everywhere that we're leaving this politics behind, in part because we have to. But Romney doesn't see them.

In the '60s Romney had the distinction of being the rare young man whose dad turned against the war before he did. As governor he seemed more modern, perhaps even the man to help his party face the future. Instead he bet heavily on the past, due almost certainly to miscalculation rather than conviction.

Kennedy couldn't know that the future he ceaselessly pondered would be lost to the atavism and fear he met in Houston. A half century later Romney mimics Kennedy's style but Mitt Romney, it turns out, is no Jack Kennedy. He peddles fear in the guise of reason, pretending to take refuge in the Constitution as he goes about his real business of subverting it. His pandering speech was but the bookend of an era.

Comments

[tsod]

You claim that the Catholic Church has a keen interest in politics as if this were a fact and not your own misreading of events. The Church pronounces on matters of morals, not of politics. Abortion, for instance, is a moral issue about which the Church must opine. That it has become a political issue does not mean the Church is interested in politics. The same can be said of divorce and contraception - your Irish "examples" of Church politicking. As to the issue of social justice in Latin America, the Church rejected liberation theololgy precisely because it pretended to wed Church teaching to a specific political agenda.

[old73]

It is really Incredible these discussion­s/argument­s are taking place among supposedly intelligent, rational people. Debating the place of religion(s) within politics, within a serious public sphere.
Sheesh!
Among all the gold and silken trappings of incredible, undisclosed wealth "donated" -coerced with false promises and threats - from (largely) desperate peoples, most believers, when challenged about practical benefits of their religion will claim "all the good it does".
Yeah right: The slavery, stonings, burning/drowning of "witches", the outright slaughter and destruction, the racism and bigiotry, etc, etc...

Xtians, Jews, Muslims, and all others certainly DO do great humanitarian and life supporting good in this beleagered world of so much desparation.

They do it as Individuals, exactly as do ALL individuals, believers and non-believers.
Ask how much of their "donated, tax-exempt hoards of gold these religions GIVE?
Virtually, literally(?)-NONE.
~john l.

[Donald Wolberg]

No one can deny Mr. Romney or anyone else the right to believe anything he wishes to believe, whether it is politics, religion or his favorite car make. We are a very tolerant nation and abide the Flat earthers, the UFO crowd (which includes a Democrat candidate for President) or veggans and Scientologists (whether they make movies or not). The difference is that we do live in the year 2007 and have a good deal of sometimes painfully acquired scientific and historic knowledge available to us a rational human beings. The difference is that not many Flat Earth crowd folks, and no Scientologists are trying to become President of the United States. It is completely appropriate to ask where any candidate for President draws the "line of rational belief." If someone wanting to be President suggested that we do live on a flat Earth, or that aliens visit us regularly, or that Heaven is in Missouri, or that Native Americans are misplaced Jewish folks from ancient Israel and Jesus did visit the United States, the electorate has a right to know of these beliefs. These are not trivial matters but go to the intellectual honesty of candidates, again a necessary factor that should be known to the electorate. None of this denies the person from holding as truth any personal belief.

[darker]

Religion is all about fear.
NOT REASON.

[coloneblog]

There's only one fundamental question that all Christian Americans have to ask of the believing Christian candidates for President. The multi-part question is: are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney positive examples of what are good Christian leaders? Based on their policies and actions in office, particularly lying and sinning the US into war with Iraq, do you think that when they leave this life, they'll be rewarded by Jesus Christ with eternal salvation in Heaven? Candidate X; if elected, would you lie to the American people as a matter of political expediency?

[FairSharFairShar]

I have to ask why weren't these questions about religion mixed with politics asked of george w bush? I know self-described Christians who voted for him because he was a bible banger. As we have seen, he has torn down walls of separation of church and state, church people appointed to high offices. Look at the mercenary killers of the firm Blackwater­...the head is a born again Christian.

The people who went to the polls to vote for Bush based on his religion are concerned about walls between Church and State torn down! Don't they know when one person gets into office and tears down the walls protecting our constitution, then anyone can do it? DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A MORMON OR A CATHOLIC OR EVEN A MUSLIM...L­OOK WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR COUNTRY UNDER A SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN bringing religion into it. Don't they know once those walls separating church and state are torn down, the next person in office gets the same power?

NO religion should ever be a reason for voting for someone and one should be skeptical of anyone using God for votes. Some of them voted for bush for the very reason they hoped he would put in Christian judges, especially anti-choice ones who base their decisions on religion rather than the Constitution.

Some of those Christians now claim they don't believe in torture and they believe in giving to the poor. Now some Christians are trying to defend their own beliefs that they are not the same type of Christian as bush. Well, well, well...loo­k what these people have done to our country -- and they did it for religion.

Suddenly, they are worried about another person's religion. Welcome to my world -- where bush put in judges and made appointments based on religion. Why worry suddenly now? Many of us have been concerned about this ever since bush got in, and many out there voted for bush, hoping he would abuse it and tear down the walls of separation.

Fair Shar

[chrisrushlau]

I read some of these comments and it's a great discussion! Someone said recently that our conventional wisdom ("don't talk about religion or politics") had completely missed the boat. I agree.
Could I toss in my little, but huge, theory about Protestantism (including Mormonism)? Since Constantine unified the Roman Empire and the Christian Church (probably leaving out all the interesting bits of the latter), Christendom, as they call it, has been neither a nice government nor a nice church, because empire doesn't sit well on a person's conscience. So you have constant rebellions.
We're getting to the end of those rebellions. All the castles and cathedrals have been rehabilitated: I'll claim that US Catholics in the pew have no more loyalty to the pope than Protestants to any pastor or bishop: it's all internal.
Where you do see today a religious bloc with political clout, such as various "fundamentalists", they're not trying to impose religion, they're using religious institutions to propel political movements. I suggest that that's all Protestantism ever was, and it's all that Islam is now, and Judaism.
So chat politely and cheerfully about beliefs with anybody, but if you want to know what they hold "beloved", watch what people do.

[Donald Wolberg]

We live in a nation tolerant of all views in religion or out. People are free to believe as they wish in the 21st Century in America. I personally like the Flat Earth crowd and have always been charmed by the Earth sits atop a turtle and that turtle atrop anoother and so on, all the way down. It is fine with me if folks bleieve that Indians are of the Lost Hebrew tribes and that Jesus came to America to preach or that he is Satan's brother--heck I know some people with brothers who would figure Jesus got the better deal then they did. It is perfectly fine to think that golden tablets were found in the ground in Ohio or New York or somewhere with strange writing and that it is ok to have 27.3 wives in the average family. Why Scientologists like Tom Cruise and John Travolta like aliens and light bulbs that show they have been ourified in a religion invented by L. Ron Hubbard and L. Sprague DeCamp, both science fiction writers, who created Scientology over lunch one day. Now, that is no worse than Jesus in America and heaven in Missouri, although I have been to Missouri, and Hannibal is near heaven,at least for Mark Twain. But Tom Cruise does not want to be President (yet) and John Travolta like to fly airplanes. Mr. Romney, however, wants to be President. In the year 2007, with so much knowledge available that a hick like me can figure the idea that Indians are ancient Jews who got lost, or that having 27.3 wives is nutsy, or that Heaven is in Missouri--I saw "Field of Dreams" and I used to be sure it was in Iowa--are all just plain silly. It is important if a person wanting to be President of the United States believes or does not believe these silly notions and if he does, we should factor that into whether he should be President or not.

[jacknab]

All the Mormons I have know have been decent, honest people, and while I may believe their beliefs to be whacky, if find them to be a lot less hypocritical than many so called Christians who are constantly carping about their being self-rightous. Jesus did not give a hoot about himself, he was concerned with the suffering of others and not his own self-rightousness. I am much more fearful of Preacher Huckabee religious influence than I am of Romey's religious influence. My issue with Romey as with Cain is their pandering to the religious right.

The only thing that I find more frightening than the thought of a Southern Baptist Preacher in the White House would be a Sciencetologist in the White House.

[wrabbitt]

Ok i'm not going to mention religion, but, having had a silver spoon in his mouth all these years has caused him to suffer from Washington Syndrome. The Symptoms are simple, make promises you won't keep., tell only lies,Keep alive the business as usual ruling party in Washington,and never let the people come between you and your mission in life,regardless of how many you step on, and most of all preserve your fellow royalty.

[deminmo]

What really is the difference between what
religion here in the US does to and for our
society, than the way religious fervor affects
people who use it as an excuse for inhuman
acts? Or, do we in American actually do the
exact same things? The idea that a Presidential
candidate is not going to govern according to
what motivates his/her behavior doesn't make
sense. If they are extreemly religious, they
will make decisions accordingly. If they are
indifferent to religious tenants, that will
also affect how they govern.
Do we delude ourselves with a belief in a diety?
Do we need hope that this is not all there is?
Is one religion better; or have all the answers?

Well, for ME, I haven't seen heaven so far in
any part of Missouri. I have lived here for
30 years.

[Rabbin]

Bill,

As it is written, how a man speak and how God speaks are not always the same. For only God knows what is in one's heart!

In how men speak to win elections is that they speak to get a vote. God's word says God is Love and Love is God and to speak to gain the things of this world is not as God speaks.

Maybe Jesus did come to speak the Indians and other studies indicate that perhaps tribes of American Indians did cross the Bearing Straits running from captivity of in Babylon.
Interpretation, Interpretation, all things in religion are based upon interpretations and are made by subjective thought rather than by objective logic! Politicians however do all things base upon getting your vote rather than what is wrong or right.

To me God is Love and Love is God and that being based mostly by righteous logic rather than by human words. I find it is better to trust in God and not to judge who is wrong or right of their faith or faiths!

I shall put my faith in God and to hell with the rest of it! Only to walk softly and humbly with all people and realize I'm not good enough or smart enough to create a world t that mankind seems hell bent on destroying no matter what is faith or politics maybe!

So duck the sky may be falling and God may be real angry because we question Him rather than ti each others arrogance and ignorance!

[2much2do]

I'm clearly outnumbered here - I'm a conservative, a Republican, a woman and (gasp) a Mormon.

Until I visited this site, I was under the impression that bigotry was more rampant in my own party - that it was primarily evangelicals driving the Mormon-bashing in this country. I'm more than a little relieved to know that it's not just my party. There's no shortage of bigotry against my faith (and apparently all faiths) in liberal circles.

I've always thought those with liberal views were preachers of tolerance. I guess that's what I was expecting to find here. I found the liberalism. I found the left-leaning politics. But I haven't seen much tolerance.

I know organized religion has been abused by misguided individuals throughout history and I can understand the contempt some of you feel. But in my opinion, just because fire burns doesn't make it useless. It just makes it powerful. Whether people harness that power for good or ill is a choice we all have to make.

It's hard to accept religious beliefs that seem strange. You may think my Mormon beliefs are odd. But I find it odd that people would actually believe the creation of this earth could have been an accident. I don't think my beliefs are any more strange than that. To me it seems obvious that there was some level of engineering and design of this planet.

Nevertheless, this isn't about doctrine. My point is that every belief - even lack of belief - requires a leap of logic or faith.

You all seem to want to paint Romney and Huckabee with the same brush. Before Romney made the speech, many on the left were making snide comments to the effect that no one with such beliefs could be trusted to run the government. Now that he has made the speech, you want to lump him with Huckabee as someone who is capitalizing on his religious piety.

I think a lot of you aren't being intellectually honest. You want him to answer questions about his faith. But you castigate him for talking about his faith.

[wagelaborer]

Lighten up, dudes. Mormons, like Catholics, vary in their politics. Look at Rocky Anderson, mayor of Salt Lake City, and Stephen Jones, 9-11 truth seeker.
My dad was brought up in a Mormon household in the coal camps of Utah. He says that 95% of those coal camps voted for FDR.
My grandma, good mormon though she was, liked her tea and coffee, and my aunt had an abortion to save her life in the 1940s in Utah, followed by a tubal.
Sure, big money has spent untold amounts to turn the Mormons conservative, just like the other churches.
But, as an atheist, I can tell you that your religion is every bit as stupid to me as the mormon religion. And I don't even know which one you follow.

[georgecrupper]

What is the difference between fear preached by religious leaders and fear as preached by President Bush. They both fail in leading earthlings to enjoy this "Garden of Eden".