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

[Qbear]

I can find a dozen things about Romney which woud cause me to fight him getting the White House tooth and nail, that have nothing to do with his LDS faith.
Mitt brought his religion out of his home and House of Worship, into the gutter of Politics.
That was his choice, but then when others don't hold it up on a pedestal and nice and pristine...don't whine about it. That's why you don't bring your Religion out to be kicked around in the gutter.

[BernieO]

What gets overlooked in the debate about religion is that there are quite a few conservative Catholics in power now who are in a position to impose their religious views on the public. Their names are Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy. Their anti abortion position is a direct reflection of their religious view that a soul is infused into the fetus at conception, something the Church made up in recent times.
How ironic that the first Catholic to be elected President did so by emphasizing separation of church and state, leading people to think that Catholics would not try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

[ReligiousWar]

You present some great facts! Religion has gone way too far in our government. Why is it that they say the opposite it true when the proof is overwhelming. Just look at faith based government $$$. Is that capitalism? We are supposed to be tolerant of all faith but it is faith itself which is intolerant. Faith based groups are legally allowed to discriminate. They receive federal money and practice this discrimination. I would prefer to tolerate all faiths but when the faith groups are not playing by those rules you simply must refuse them money and power. Look at the facts people. This abuse of money and power by faith based groups infiltrating our government is well documented and must stop.

[poopdeck]

It is hardly a recommendation to be compared to JFK who brought us Cuba and Vietnam and who dithered on civil rights. JFK, in my book, was a middling to poor president who does not deserve any hallelujahs.

[DasBoot]

Without wanting to be overly optimistic, I think Bill is right. This country is disintegrating, and ever-so-slowly, more and more people realize that the reach of religious fanaticism into politics has a lot to do with it.

Let's hope--and pray if so inclined--the losses are still reversible.

[Bongborg]

Bill, you said, the one thing the Mormon trolls are not willing to tolerate. That is, that there should be discussion of the Mormon faith, even if one of their own brought the topic up. You see, it's like entry to their temples; they know we are not worthy. They will be here soon to inform you of the fact.

[edresearcher]

What is ironic in the GOP primary race is that while Romney is trying to convince GOP voters that his Mormon background won't unfairly affect others, Huckabee is promoting himself by saying almost the opposite -- that he will use his strong beliefs to make decisions for the country.
What a sad commentary for a country that was founded by deists (at most) and that depends on the separation of church and state to ensure legal fairness for all.
The evangelicals/fundamentalists cannot help but proselytize. They believe they have a moral imperative from God to do so. And if they can't convert the country to their perverse ideology, then they will try to bring as much of it into subservience to their views as possible. They are a voice unto themselves and they call that voice God.
After seeing what Bush has done to this country and the "high ethical standards" he has maintained in his administration, why would anyone want another self-professed born again in the White House???

[Idytme]

Yes. You articulated exactly how I feel about this situation. Some people have been upset that Romney's speech led to discussions of the Mormon religion itself, others have made comments along the line of "you can't take apart this religion or you can take apart X Christian religion".
But if Romney had made Kennedy's speech, all of it would be unnecessary. If there is a separation of church and state, and if there would be a conflict between faith and duty, the President would step down - there is no need to discuss religious doctrine.
But when candidates say that there is no clear separation and that faith should be in government, we have to ask what that means.
Huckabee wants women to submit to their husbands and bring everyone to Jesus. It is reported today that he took tobacco money to go to churches and minister to them to vote against health care.
We have already had seven years of a President working for corporations and telling his flock that he is doing it for Jesus. Some folks think that being anti global warming is part of their Christian religion.
If anyone says they cannot separate their faith from their duties, all aspects of their faith come into question.
And there are many people, like me, who are fairly ignorant of the beliefs of many denominations and once we learn what they really believe I think we are going to be even more alarmed.

[Merlin7]

Religious fanaticism -- both Christian and Muslim -- is a serious and growing threat to the future of humanity. It's appalling that American politicians increasingly rely on these lowest-common-denominator appeals to voters, just as radical Islamists promise post-mortem virgins to young converts.

Americans should demand an end to such zealotry and halt government tax exemptions for religious institutions (which, in effect, subsidize fantasies and fraud), a ban on religious phrases on money and public buildings and an end to chaplains in the military. Religion is a reflection of neurosis and should be treated as such by public policy.

[Boyaca]

Advance the cause. Tell lies. Do what you need to do to get to the next step. Don`t tell em what you really intend to do if elected because they will not vote for you. Its like the introduction to Christianity. Its all about forgiveness and love. After you have converted, its all about guilt, sin, punishment and hell fire. Romney has a plan.

[WASanford]

Wow! I can only hope you're right!