Well, you could've seen this one coming.
Chances are by now you're aware of the fallout from last week's Values Voters Summit, the annual event in which the hard-right Evangelical segment of the electorate gathers to throw King James Bibles at the feet of Republican leaders to see who will be the last one standing after beating his or her competition to death with one. This year, everybody seemed to be gunning for one guy: Mitt Romney. Poor Mitt got it hard from both ends as his place on the speaking roster happened -- through what I'm sure was complete coincidence -- to fall between Dallas megachurch demagogue Pastor Robert Jeffress and seriously crazy talk radio host Bryan Fischer, both of whom have railed against Romney's Mormon faith as an insult to the one, true God.
Jeffress, who astonishingly is the cuddlier of the two, merely referred to Mormonism as a cult while lavishing praise on Rick Perry for supposedly being a trustworthy follower of Jesus Christ; Fischer took it three or four giant steps further, saying not only that a proven Christian and a proven Christian alone should be our next president, but that Sharia law is coming to take over our courts, homosexuals are a threat to the public health and the reason we haven't seen a successful attack on the contiguous 48 since 9/11 is that crowds sing "God Bless America" during the seventh inning stretch at major league baseball games. And no, I'm not making that last one up.
Romney, to his credit, tried to take the high road in his reaction to all the hyper-pious pummeling. Of course at something like the Values Voters Summit, the high road doesn't need to be very high; the Lincoln Tunnel towers over the discourse at this thing.
So is Mormonism a cult? Was it arguably the brainchild of con-men and has it been perpetuated by the power-hungry and adhered to largely by the weak and desperate? Is it a questionable belief system that should have no place influencing American politics? Pretty much on all counts. But here's the thing: That makes it no different than any other faith-based religion.
Fischer and Jeffress have always been despicably hateful men whose opinions needed to be pushed so far to the fringes that they practically vanish into the ether. But at this point more than any other in our recent history, this country does not have the luxury to concern itself with with ridiculous contrivances like which ancient superstition a candidate aligns him or herself with -- whether he or she passes some religious purity test by properly genuflecting before the right god.
Over the next few months, as the campaign ramps up, you're going to start hearing a lot more proclamations of faith from those running for the highest office in the world. They'll talk about how their belief in Jesus or whomever guides them, and what's more, they'll do it largely as a theatrical act of pure indulgence, as a means of cynically pandering to those they feel they need to pander to in order to get elected. Their command performance may not always be at the whim of breathtakingly arrogant insurgents like Jeffress and Fischer, but it will certainly be as a show of respect to the supposedly benign faith of which these men have become extremist purveyors and arbiters. And that faith, while something I disagree with wholeheartedly as a rational human being, should at the very least be a personal choice and a personal choice only -- at most it should be something that is expressly excluded from American politics.
At this fragile point in our nation's history, the fact that our presidential candidates will feel that they have the latitude, even for a moment, to gush metaphysical politics-as-usual platitudes is simply terrifying. Discussing something as abstract and ineffectual as faith at this moment is akin to extolling one's own favorite lottery numbers. Neither offers a concrete method of action. Faith will never defend this country's people from the ongoing threats to their livelihood. God won't save us from the mess we're currently in.
We need something more than wishful thinking, and we don't have the time to talk about anything less.
Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza
While I definitely don’t subscribe to using religion as a means of choosing candidates (in fact, the idea repulses me) I wouldn’t want to deny anyone the right to use that measuring stick for themselves. It would be like someone telling me I couldn’t use a candidate’s environmental views (to name one) as a source of decision. Yes I know it opens the door to some funky mojo and warped lines of thinking that could be questionable but so be it…that’s freedom of choice. If presidential candidates want to beat each other with their Jesus stick and their party wants to see that then by all means...again, freedom of choice. If a candidate wants to keep their religion to themselves and not discuss it…well, good luck with the GOTP…but more importantly, it’s their freedom of choice. To people who could care less about religion and its influence on a candidate then it won’t influence their vote.
All that said, I agree with the Chez…there are more important things for candidates to be discussing besides who’s got the bigger Jesus stick.
Personally, I'm all for the Constitution as written--i.e., as a document which refrains from dictating ideology. That's the way it has to be if we're to have the democracy our founders intended to give us. Let's keep our liberties.
As far as "public displays" of the Ten Commandments, it depends on precisely what you mean. Statehouse displays, no. Anything that appears to mix religion and government, no. Public, as in the "public square," however--yes. Religion has as much right to exist in public as anything else. What the Constitution forbids (in the abstract) is government/religion mixing. "State" and "public" are not the same thing, and we should be very thankful for that.
Maybe YOU should come out and say what you really mean. Are you suggesting that "public displays" are subject to state approval? Do we want to live in that sort of country? So I assume you're specifically referring to govt.-sponsored displays.
1. Denounce Jesus
2. Find any fault with the Bible
The majority of people in this country are Protestant Christiana and take Jesus and the Bile very seriously. Romney is catching hell is because he is involved in a religion that says Satan is Jesus' brother and that the Bible is not totally accurate. Now Christians hear that from non- believers and atheists all the time; but they simply will not tolerate that from a Johnny-come-lately religion that proclaims that all of Christianity is false...except for them. Like it or not, the person that will symbolize the character of this nation will not be an atheist, non-believer or anyone opposing Jesus. The person that will symbolize this character of this nation might be a woman, Black, White, Hispanic or Asian...but they will be traditional Christian.
Oddly, all have chosen the God costume.
"You keep your delusions; I have a perfectly good set of my own." Anson Greer
"Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds and fanatics." C. J. Keyser
I absolutely stand by these.
JFK said the Pope would not influence his decisions as President. Romney has not done same.
Thanks!
I wish there was a lot more outrage against the seepage of religion into politics - as it presents a major cancer in our ability to govern.
Religious beliefs are no more sacred and private than any ideology. Whether you are a Communist or a Nazi matters, you don't get to keep that private if you run for office.
On the other hand, I might change my mind if you can show me where in Constitution we, the people, are told how to vote, how to worship, and how to campaign for office.
Saying that we in the reality based community do not want to be governed by your religious beliefs is not the same thing as saying we want to deny you your beliefs or the freedom to worship as you please.
Can you find one quote by an American atheist that says "We want to deny Believers the right to worship as they choose"? I'm an atheist and I've never seen such a quote and if I did I'm certain the person making the statement would be loudly and persistently criticized by nonbelievers.
A simple and fundamental reality that seems lost on your "reality based community" (thanks a lot) is that church/state separation, as outlined in the Constitution, purely concerns what the govt. ("Congress," i.e. the state) does and doesn't do--NOT what the people, including political candidates, say and do. Think about it. Once the state starts telling citizens how, when, and if to worship, then we no longer have state/church separation, do we? Ditto for the press and speech.
At least on line, nonbelievers are constantly calling for restrictions on religious freedom (while denying that they're doing so). That disconnect is both hilarious and disturbing.