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

[clarkbp]

Do not underestimate the intellect or the loonyness of Joseph Smith. This was a very smart and deranged con man. He completely reinvented Christianity - to suit his own agenda. And he was able to convince others of his legitimacy as a Prophet of God. He rewrote the King James Bible - the Mormons have their “Inspired Version of the Bible.”

When Smith had conflicts with the Christian faith - he simply changed the faith to suit him. How convenient.

So my question: Which Bible would Romney use to swear an oath to protect you and me?

http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/12/07/the-mormon-bible-and-mitt-romney/

[jefegeoffe]

Bill, you accurately portray almost all the reasons I dislike and distrust Mitt Romney, and give an interesting take on the Democrats' loss of the South in the '60s (I've always ascribed it to the southern racist rejection of the civil rights acts).
My issue with your essay is about another inference you've drawn: for the life of me I can't see the signs you've alluded to. You state, again quite accurately, that our process has devolved to a "chokehold of a backward politics that subverts democracy and religion and turns us against science and the world". You then state (and here is the difficulty)that "there are signs everywhere that we're leaving this politics behind". Dear God (pardon the wit)! Where on earth do you see such signs??? All I see is an entire world awash in religiosity, more fundamentalists in power around the globe, and a growing acceptance here in the U.S. (due in great part, no doubt, to the canard that religion, especially Christianity, is "under attack") of the most repressive sorts of Fallwellian manipulations, and the most blatant pandering by moderates to the far edges of non-reasoning faithful believers.
I see little hope of the progress toward Reason that I once took for granted. Please, Bill, show me a sign!

[newworldman777]

Since Mitt's religion teaches him that I, a Native American, am a member of one of the lost tribes of Israel, then would he, as President, support my endeavor to claim my own little "kabutz" in the land of Israel? Would Israel support that endeavor? If not, then would Israel expect an America under President Mitt to continue supporting Israel, while they refuse to acknowledge the beliefs of Mitt's religion?

[JimPivonka]

Bill, I hope that your optimistic assessment and prediction of the end of the era of dominance of the American Ayatollahs - Fallwell, Robertson, and their ilk - is at hand.

They and their followers believe otherwise - that the "end times" are at hand. My reading of the history of their movement is that they are not so easily sent to the dustbin of history as you suggest - as much as I wish it were so.

The history of millenialism in Protestant theology, including Mormonism, is worth study. Dispensationalism, as an aspect of millenialism has had political goals from the beginning - especially in its "pre-millenialist" variety.

The distinction between those millenialists who believe the "new dispensation" will occur before the second coming, and those who believe it will occur after that event once had political significance. One of the recent triumphs of Post Millenialist Domninionism is the way in which it has coopted the Pre Millenialists- as a result they have become a politically unified force.

Dominionism, of course, explicitly desires bringing about the "Kinddom of Heaven on Earth" ("KOHOE"), because that is a precondition - as is the reestablishment of the state of Israel and the Conversion of the Jews - for the Second Coming.

The "KOHOE" of course implies a virtuous society, with the laws of man (the Constitituon, Bush's famed "piece of paper") superceded by Sharia, oops, not Sharia but its Dominionist equivalent - of course.

The heretical Christian sects advocating this superstition laden version of reality have proven over three centuries that they have great staying power. They change forms, assume doctrinal disguises, practice the "steeplejacking" of congragations, dissemble and dissimulate (no lie is forbidden, if it sooner brings about the KOHOE) and use every concievable means to achieve political power - which is, after all what the "KOHOE" means.

Don't break out the champagne too soon, eh?

[amamomofsons]

So many of you guys are right on. Unfortunately Mormons can not and will not separate themselves from their religion. They are bound by the church not to. Just like the Christian fundamentalists can not and will not separate themselves from their beliefs and will try at all costs to impose them on everyone else. People who are pro choice will have to abide by their rules. Women will have to bend to their rules and sooner than later we will have the same problems as they have in third world countries. It's as simple as that.

[fairwitness]

I am surprised that we still seem to expect that candidates will act in accordance with their campaign pronouncements--if we haven't learned that lesson, at the very least, we are doomed to continue the catastrophy of Bushism. Most of the candidates, especially Republican, WILL NOT TELL US what they really will do in office. They know they could not get elected if we knew. Therefore they will SAY ANYTHING they think we want to hear to get them votes, knowing full well that, because of the castration of the press by its owners, they will not be held accountable for their words later.

That we continue to hang on their words as if they meant something makes it OUR fault when they sucker us into voting for them. And obviously at least 30% of us will NEVER admit to having been duped.

[liaisonsus]

Religion is a fairly new concept in the history of "Humans".
It is not God who created man to his own image, but Man who created God to his own image.
Religion is the most aberrant thing to have happened to humans.
It has separated us from our home (nature) and neighbours and relatives(­animals),p­ermitting us to perpetrate the worst crimes against the only home we know (planet earth!)

[areacode631]

A few thoughts to consider on God and government and the relationship between the two.
"The Law is the Law"
"So if the U.S. government determines that it is against the law for the words ‘under God’
to be on our money, then so be it. And if that same government decides that the Ten
Commandments are not to be used in or on a government installation, then so be it. I
would like to think that those people have the American public's best interests at heart.
But you know what else I'd like? I don't believe the government and its employees should
participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations, which honor the God that our
government is eliminating from many facets of American life… I'd like my mail
delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving and Easter. After all, it's just another
day. I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives not to have to worry about
getting home for the Christmas break. After all, it's just another day to a government that
is trying to be politically correct. What do you all think? Maybe our elected officials will
stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin once again to represent the majority of
all of the American people. So be it."



[areacode631]

A few thoughts to consider on God and government and the relationship between the two.
"The Law is the Law"

"So if the U.S. government determines that it is against the law for the words ‘under God’
to be on our money, then so be it. And if that same government decides that the Ten
Commandments are not to be used in or on a government installation, then so be it. I
would like to think that those people have the American public's best interests at heart.
But you know what else I'd like? I don't believe the government and its employees should
participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations, which honor the God that our
government is eliminating from many facets of American life… I'd like my mail
delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving and Easter. After all, it's just another
day. I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives not to have to worry about
getting home for the Christmas break. After all, it's just another day to a government that
is trying to be politically correct. What do you all think? Maybe our elected officials will
stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin once again to represent the majority of
all of the American people. So be it."



[Hume]

The most troubling, and poorly thought out, portion of Mr. Romney's speech was his conclusion that religion is a necessary condition of good government. Hogwash!

Religion is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of good government.

Kennedy in his speech noted that morality may be a necessary condition of good government. But morality does not require religion. And from what I've seen recently neither does religion require morality.

But Kennedy was probably right about good government requiring a certain degree of moral responsibility. God knows, we've seen what the immoral activity of a Rove can do to gut the constitutional innards of a Republic.

As Lewis Lapham noted in one of his despairing essays, we are not guaranteed intelligent and courageous leaders in this rocky history we live.

Mr. Romney and others are living proof of the truth of that scary observation.

[jdm58]

If anyone remotely believes that there is a true separation of Church from State, then they must seriously have their head in the sand. Right or wrong, one of the single most telling characteristics of an individual is the "faith" to which they claim as their own, and the extent to which they practice it.
Unfortunately, there are many people today that don't truly understand what delineates one message of "faith" from another. Some claim to be "Christian", but have never read the Bible, others are "Jewish" by birth but not by choice. There are HUGE differences between the beliefs of Baptists, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc... and it is important that the voting public understand these differences, because public policy will inevitably be framed by what those in authority believe. The original settlers of this country came to escape religious persecution, Christians escaping persecution from other Christians no less. It boils down to who is in POWER.
If someone professes a chosen religion out of one side of their mouth, and then wants to lead us to believe that their religion does not influence their thinking, then they are not worthy of our trust, or our votes. I for one am tired of pandering politicians who would have us fall for the "message of change", when it really means "change the message" to whomever the audience is.

[wrabbitt]

Everybody has their views on religion, i view it as a non changing, stuffed shirt, taxfree way of having sex with little boys, the practice of religion goes back many centurys, whats the ringing of the bells for? scaring away demons? And the long flowing robes? fashion statement? I don't care how or why you practice your religion, but, the playing field needs to be shortened, Tax everything, land, salarys, the religious right is getting rich at the expense of" the believer" Just in case GOD came back, would he be happy with all the money raised in his name? And, used to make some religious royalty live like a King? What happened to the investigation into religion? Who got paid off there?

[marksiet]

Mitt Romney tries to act the part but his sincerity is always in question. It is too bad really because the more he tries the less he accomplishes. The greater issue is where he is coming from. Power and privelige are already his due to his wealth so what do he want? The answer is more of the same. It is greed after all that drives him and that greed will have to pay off those who are supporting him. What other reason for trying for the highest office is there for a man like this? Is he for you and me? How does he help us? Yesterday on meet the press he showed that he really doesn't care what we think about anything. He is going to go ahead and do whatever it takes to win. He has never spoken of America and inclusion like our best presidents Kennedy a prime example.

Does the Mormon church support him because of what he can do for America or what he can do for the Mormon church?

These kinds of things should not be a part of the political scene but they have been targeted because of men like Romney who don't see the American whole. He only see the parts he needs to influence to win.

There is a class war taking place on several fronts with most the politicians lining up with the wealthy and greedy. Perhaps only John Edwards wealthy himself understands this better than the lot of them. This battle is timeless but lately with the Bush administration increasing this class gap it seems as though we need to come back the other way.

Romney is simply another fat cat looking for more fat. He cares not a fig for the people. That in not the kind of person I want in charge.

[Timma]

Western Christian theology and religion have always whored for politics and power. Politicians with overt religious affiliations recognize religious affinity as a constituent building block.

I agree with Curry who states "when theology crosses over into politics its okay to ask (about a politicians religious beliefs)". It is likewise okay for religious people to ask why politicians do or don't walk their faith convictions. But let's be real - Do you really think politicians by and large make good theologians? I sincerely doubt it. They have no pretense of evangelizing you except to get your vote.

Theology is no longer part of the quadrivium of post-modern society as it was in medieval Europe. Politicians will continue to gloss their political ideology in religious vernacular viz. President Bush's use of "good and evil", and "you're either for us or against us". There's hardly a cheaper and more effective rhetorical device than to use the patois of your favorite "patriarch" to get your point across to the crowds.

Romney's odd and at times caustic remarks aren't surprising (also Huckabee). Stick with the person's political agenda for America - What they say they will do in terms of the poor, the elderly, peaceful resolution of war, hunger, or education provide the basis for anyone's religious convictions regardless of their particular tradition. Don't give religion undue attention. Stick with your vision for America!

[henderstock]

(1) Well said, Mr. Curry!
(2) Some of you folks should check your comments for spelling and syntax before you post them. People from all over the world are reading this.