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

[DanielJP]

Get real they don't want seperation of Church and state. They just want seperation of State from every other religion but their's.We­ather it be Evangelical, or Baptist or Prespertiatian, Mormom or what ever, they want their religion to be numero uno. Take orgainized religion and get rid of them all. You do not need them to pray or be rightious.

[LostHearts]

How ironic that a country founded on the principles of separation of church and state has evolved into a "christian nation"--the exact opposite intent of its founders.

Countries like Great Britain, which is obstensibly a "religious" country, does not allow any talk of religion in Parliament and no one cares what religion, if any, a member of Parliament belongs to. Brits are scratching their heads in disbelief over the idiocy going on in the US.

Another example of how we are making ourselves look foolish in the eyes of the civilized world.

[amamomofsons]

Hey we have to think this over a lot more than we have folks. Mormons were biased against blacks in their church until of course they had spiritual inspiration in 1978 and they decided to get with the rest of the world and embrace blacks as members of LDS. They have subjugated women far longer than any other church that I can think of except Muslims. They hold to tenents in their church that are out of the middle ages and they commit their lives to recruiting as many souls as they can even if it means baptizing, posthumously and without permission, Jews into their church.It'­s a cult with a broader view of power.This kind of dangerous religiousness is just what we are fighting in the middle east. I for one do not want Rabbi's, Priests, Shamans, Ministers, Mullah's, Emmams, Monks, Evangelicals or anybody else of religion running my country when it is obvious they have other motives. People can choose to believe in whatever religion they want, but they need to keep it out of government. I don't think Romney can do that. PERIOD!

[lambdin1]

Religion yes indeed has had a chokehold on politics for a long time. I remember Kennedy's speach in Texas and the buzz it caused in the electorate.
We need to get beyond religion and is the individual someone you'd like to have a beer with. One look at Bush and that should convinence anyone that religion and nice have nothing to do with politics!

[Benthead]

This is the best piece on Romney, Mormonism, and religion that I've read anywhere. It makes a strong––and in my view, dead-on accurate––criticism of Romney's speech and maneuvering. But it does so without trashing millions of Mormons, or making sweeping dismissals of religion.

I notice, too, that it didn't bring out quite so many commenters who want to make sure anyone with religious sensibilities is scorned, insulted, and dismissed. Even as an atheist, I'm offended at the contempt heaped on people who find hope or meaning in religion. It's fair game to make public arguments against the plausibility of religion; but it's politically stupid and ethically demeaning to abuse believers wholesale.

[chocco]

Great commentary, Bill. Like you, what someone chooses to believe as religious faith is none of my business, but when a politician chooses to use his religous faith as a way of setting public policy and laws I must adhere to, then hell yeah it's my business. Romney's speech, last week was ridiculous and he only made it because the real true beliver in the race, the reverend Huckabee is beating him in the polls. I say a pox on the house of ANY candidate who talks anymore about his damned religion! As Thomas Jefferson said, it does not affect me if a citizen worships 20 Gods, one God, or no God. All politicians should LIVE their faith and shut the f up talking about it. I've heard enough, already. If they want my vote, they will NOT bring up religion again.

[Fernando]

"Mormons have a number of striking beliefs... that God was once a man and lives in a distant solar system; that believers may become gods and rule other planets."

They also believed, back when Romney was still a kid, that black people were black as a punishment from god and if they were saved, they'd get to Heaven only after being turned white. They have since disavowed that belief, but what made them tell that was nonsense from the aforementioned nonsense? By what standard does one judge it? We'd all get a planet? Can anyone think of something more scary than a Country Music planet? How about a planet ruled by Corey Feldman?

I shudder in fear.

[NorCalNative]

Mr. Curry, I think every aspect of your analysis of Mr. Romney is spot on. When the candidate schedules this type of speech he opens himself to certain questions that may have previously been out of bounds.

I did not agree with Romney's statement that Freedom required Religion or that he failed to acknowledge any role for atheists and agnostic Americans. Although he didn't speak to this in his speach, I thought his views on whether he would prosecute sick medical marijuana patients to be cruel and shallow and lacking in compassion.

As President, I think we would have more to fear from the Republican World View than Mormonism in the White House. Private industry at the expense of the public good seems to be the blueprint for that gang.

[marysandra]

I can't even imagine what a Romney supporter is thinking. I don't know how politics and religion became involved.O­ne would automatically seem to preclude the other,at least in the country we used to call the USA.Howeve­r, Kennedy made that speech after he received the nomination,and that makes a very big difference,to me. After one is nominated,asking questions about personal beliefs as they may transfer to public policy is appropriate, not before.

[offred]

I read in a blog yesterday that one of Romney's companies was bidding on acquiring Clear Channel. Now that's scary.

[cognate]

All religion is based on fear.

[larry278]

Nobody says, "You are no Jack Kennedy." as well as the late Lloyd Bentsen[sic] when squelching Dan Quayle. It's still a good squelch but it's getting long in the tooth. It needs a rest till 2009.

[Miket53]

Romney was courageous to acknowledge and address the religion issue. Instead of dodging it and twisting is position he said it like it is. He is proud of Mormonism and it provides guidance..­..ground rules...fo­r life. Much the way it must for that other famous Mormon...H­arry Reid.
He made it clear that his religion will not be the basis for his decisions as president. I am still amazed that there is so much news about the topic of religion. It has been a part of most people's lives as long as I can remember.P­eople need to calm down and worry about candidates polices, etc.
Mike
http://mtaricani.blogspot.com/

[Crowhaul]

Here's the bottom line: If/when I run for President, I will most likely be questioned extensively on my belief in Higgit the Enlightened Being of Spuul. I accept this.

I would also expect that anyone running for President who believes in the lost Jewish/Indian tribe of North America or the planet/sta­r/whatever of Kolob should be extensively questioned about it.

[bethinCary]

I think it would be a good idea to have a religious summit of all countries of the world.
I would like to see a moratorium set for ALL religions-that people could not organize in worship more than 2 days per week. The other days, should they choose-would be spent in actual READING of the Bible, Quoran, Kaballah or whatever thay choose to-ON ONES OWN-free from the imperialistic and dogmatic theology of many times ego,power,­greed-driv­en religious leaders.