I was at a dinner party the other evening where the conversation moved swiftly through movies, the New York real estate market and plastic surgery before landing firmly on presidential politics. We started with possible candidate Michael Bloomberg (doesn't look presidential), and ended with Mitt Romney (If Mattel made a president doll it would be Mitt.) The question of whether Romney's religion was affecting his chances of getting the Republican nomination was raised and I idly mentioned I had read that Romney's grandfather had left the U.S. for Mexico in order to practice polygamy. A day later I got an email from the hostess correcting my information about Romney -- turns out it was his great-grandfather, not his grandfather who went to Mexico -- and mentioning she had heard the Romney grandfather rumor a number of times that week. She went on to remark she found it unfortunate that people in 2007 were having the same kind of discussion about a candidate's religion that they had had when Kennedy ran for president in 1960, sad proof of how little the country has changed since then.
I thought a lot about her comment, wondering if she were right and a discussion of a candidate's religious beliefs should be off-limits. I believe, as she does, that religion ought to be a private matter, so I admit I surprised myself when I discovered I disagreed with her, and myself, this time.
Of course it isn't polygamy in any generation that concerns me about Romney. And of course it's not just Romney. I simply don't like anybody's religion anywhere near politics and the closer a candidate is to a religion's orthodoxy, the more worried I become. In the case of Romney, it's not that he's a Mormon, it's the fact that he's a Mormon leader. He's been a bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints and was later appointed president of the Boston LDS, a top church position which, according to Newsweek, is the equivalent of being the head of a large diocese. Now I admire people with deep religious convictions as long as those convictions allow compassion toward others with different religious convictions. But if those convictions have any place at all in politics, and that's a big "if," I prefer them to inform, rather than lead, political positions. Jimmy Carter, our first born-again president and perhaps the most Evangelical president in U.S. history, was willing to stand on personal principle against the Southern Baptist Convention on the issue of abortion, and he ultimately withdrew his membership from the organization in 2000 criticizing its "increasingly rigid creed." Given Romney's religious resume, it's the "rigid creed" I worry about.
Unfortunately, the same is true with most every candidate. As candidates rush toward religion (read, the Christian Right) in an epidemic of primary race conversions, it's hard to imagine any of them being able to separate the secular from the non-secular, the church from the State. My friend is correct when she says there's still a lot of rumoring going on in politics concerning a candidate's religion, but that is the natural by-product of candidates exploiting their belief in God by offering it up as a prime qualification for being president. That kind of thing turns true religious beliefs into campaign fodder, taking what ought to be personal and private and subjecting it to all kinds of public scrutiny and discussion, rumors included.
When Kennedy made his 1960 speech in Houston to Protestant ministers, he made it patently clear that he was firmly committed to the separation of church and State and would not allow any religious leader to dictate public policy. Now, in order to get elected president, we see candidates clambering over each another in a mad race to claim Jesus as Number One on their Buddy Lists. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who does that deserves to have their beliefs questioned, parsed, rumored about, scrutinized and questioned again. That includes Mitt Romney. And Barack Obama. And Rudy Giuliani. And Hillary. And the rest of them.
I wanted to let you know that I think your post grossly mischaracterizes how Mitt Romney has run his campaign. In truth, Mr. Romney has never sought to capitalize in any way on his religion or his religious beliefs. In all instances where he has mentioned or explained his religion in public, it has been under the necessity of defending himself from attack or explaining to those biased against him for his religion. In short, Mr. Romney has never tried to exploit his religion. But it appears that you have.
I have posted a full response to your unfair post at www.romneyexperience.com. I would welcome your comments at ryan at romneyexperience dot com.
Best regards.
I think you misrepresented Grossman's point. I don't think the post was anything aimed specifically at Romney, but at the fact that people are using religion as a qualification for public office. Now, admittedly, I had not intentions of voting for Mitt before I read this blog, but I'm curious as to why he didn't reveal he holds such a high position in the Mormon church. That's something I think the public has a right to know.
This man was given access to Phillipine orphans at the House of Joy because the owner thought he could trust him. He's a minister, you see.
And ex-law enforcement.
And a "Christian Clown," as he bills himself on his website. Oh yeah, and he was busted for having pornographic images of orphan boys on his laptop and digital camera, as well as software that totally erases data from the hard drive.
I really don't want some primitive superstitions running the person who runs the country. While some Christian values are admirable, others are nonsensical and potentially dangerous. Running a modern country with 2000 year old concepts is bad, m'kay?
Gimme that old time derision!
inclined to speak on behalf of those of us who
do not choose to be religiously affiliated in
any way, because I'd like to know who to vote for...?
I dream of the day when it would be obscene to even mention what you believe religiously if you're running for office.
Church/State have nothing to do with one another. Our country was founded on it. Religious nut jobs have decided to revise history instead.
didn't *quite* start out this way,
it has lately become 'sanctified', thanks
to Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell,
Oral Roberts, James Dobson & more lately, OBL.
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
Or maybe it's that whole 'City on a Hill' thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill
Of course we know this only because of his willingness to abandon principle in order to say whatever he finds necessary to get elected. But it still does seem clear that it is political expediency and not religious devotion that determines his principles such as they are.
These religious folks would get elected and spend the rest of their days fighting it out within the sects of their own faith. I have never noticed that religious people act more charitably that others, nor do they show more mercy or seek more justice. A study should be commissioned at a major university to determine if the religious are, in fact, less able to demonstrate in their behavior the very principles which they profess. Maybe they are struggling more than others to act humanely and want to hide behind piety?
In my opinion, religions divide people rather than uniting them. When the final nuclear war begins, it will not be the atheist Russian who start it. We already know that.
Separate church and state as our founders recommended. The "religious" need to find another vehicle to spread their love and good works.
Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821 - 1890)
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1953
Haaretz.com 5/6/07: Too much Israel: Small, vulnerable and endangered
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=856329&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
Last Thursday, and on the Thursday before that, the Republicans and the Democrats held the first two televised debates of the 2008 election campaign. Any Israeli who listened to them could have been pleased. Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo said, "If there is a threat to the existence of the State of Israel - which is by the way, I think, a potential threat to the existence of the United States - then you have to come ... to the aid of Israel." Democratic Senator Barack Obama said: "Israel has been one of our most important allies around the world."
Nevertheless, a not entirely pleasant feeling was palpable during the presidential debates when Israel was mentioned: the sense that it is not a strong country on whom America can rely, but rather a threatened fledgling, in need of protection. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, said Senator John McCain, that would be "a real threat to the State of Israel." The moderator added fuel to the fire when he asked the panel's members what they would say if they were president of the United States and received a phone call from the Israeli prime minister, saying that he was about to attack the nuclear sites in Iran and requesting American assistance.
We can be impressed by the replies of the candidates, the wall-to-wall support for Israel, but we can also regret the fact that Israel is so high on the American agenda. "Israel" was mentioned 18 times during the Republican debate, as compared to only one mention for a giant like Russia, and only three for a great power like China. With the Democrats, the results were more modest: only three mentions of Israel. Yet this was more than the mentions of Great Britain, Egypt, Australia, South Africa, Brazil or Canada, and almost the same as those of neighboring Mexico.
"Be not deceived: God Is Not Mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that also shall he reap."