More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Menachem Rosensaft

GET UPDATES FROM Menachem Rosensaft
 

Judge Romney on Policies, Not Faith

Posted: 10/28/11 09:32 AM ET

On December 17, 1862, General Ulysses S. Grant issued General Order No. 11 expelling "Jews, as a class" from large parts of Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee "within twenty-four hours." A few weeks later, following protests from Jewish groups, President Lincoln had this order rescinded. When Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise of Cincinnati, Ohio, met with the President on January 6, 1863, to thank him, Lincoln reportedly replied that "to condemn a class is, to say the least, to wrong the good with the bad," and that he would not allow any American to be discriminated against because of his religion.

America has two pronounced and antithetical religious traditions. The first, embodied by Republicans -- Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan -- and Democrats -- Bill Clinton, Barack Obama -- alike, is one of unifying tolerance, according to members of different faiths not just the freedom to worship but the fundamental presumption that no religion has a monopoly on authenticity or legitimacy. The second is epitomized by a narrow-minded aversion toward the other, virtually any "other."

Lincoln's generosity of spirit stands in stark contrast to Pieter Stuyvesant, the autocratic 17th-century Director-General of the Dutch colony of New Netherlands, who considered Jews a "deceitful race" and urged that "such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ" not be allowed "to further infect and trouble this new colony." But then again, the Calvinist Stuyvesant was equally antagonistic toward Lutherans, "Papists," and Quakers. Fast-forward to the Ku Klux Klan with its virulent hatred of Jews and Roman Catholics; and then to Father Charles Coughlin who ranted against Jewish "Christ-killers and Christ-rejecters" on his radio broadcasts during the 1930's, and told a 1938 rally in the Bronx that, "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing."

In this context, the unseemly polemics regarding Mitt Romney's Mormon faith take on ominous overtones.

Jews should be especially careful to eschew the disparagement of any religious group. Quite aside from the persecution and discrimination we have suffered at the hands of non-Jews over the centuries, we consistently shoot at one another in circular firing squad fashion and then bitterly bemoan our lack of unity. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, has referred to Reform Jews as "a separate people" who "should be vomited up." In turn, far too many Reform and Conservative Jews scorn the Chabad-Lubavich movement as a messianic cult.

Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress made headlines when he called the Mormon Church a "cult" and declared that "Mormonism is not Christianity." Driving the same point home even more crudely, another supporter of one of Romney's Republican rivals told a Christian radio talk show host that "juxtaposing traditional Christianity to the false God of Mormonism is very important."

Attempting to defend himself against accusations of bigotry in a Washington Post op-ed, Jeffress invoked John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, for the proposition that, "It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Say what?

Since Romney's faith has once again been injected into the national political discussion, it would behoove us to examine his personal religious values and beliefs as he himself has expressed them. "Freedom," he explained in a December 6, 2007, speech, "requires religion just as religion requires freedom.... I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

Romney's religiosity appears to be devoid of sectarian zealotry. "I believe," he said, "that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."

This broad-based inclusivity appears to have given a decidedly ecumenical ethos to the religious imperative that forms an integral part of Romney's political philosophy. Balancing a recognition that "the founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion," with a belief that "the Creator" should be acknowledged "in ceremony and word" in the conduct of public affairs, his blurring of the constitutional separation between religion and government seems not to have given rise to intolerance or intellectual insularity on his part. On the contrary, for Romney the values of "our religious heritage" are "not unique to any one denomination" but "belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common."

Romney does not come across in any way as mean-spirited. "We should remember that decency and civility are values, too," he told the Values Voters Summit earlier this month. While anti-abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger, he acknowledges that, "This is a tender and sensitive issue, and people - good people - come out on both sides of this issue. I respect people that have different views on this issue." Confronted recently for the umpteenth time with the health-care plan he had implemented in Massachusetts, he replied simply, "I care about people."

Romney's views on the economy, jobs, taxes, health-care, the preservation of Social Security and Medicare, energy policy, the US role in world affairs, and other matters of national and global import are all legitimate subjects for scrutiny and debate in this year's presidential campaign. His faith and church, however, should be off the table.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft is Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School, and Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at Syracuse University College of Law

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 176
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
corkey Dickey
07:03 PM on 11/30/2011
Thank you for writing a sensible and simple reasoning on the polititions religion. I don't care what religion they are as long as they care about the rest of us . ( which Newt does not )
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vonPinto
Who Dares Win.
05:01 PM on 10/29/2011
No Sir. I will judge him on BOTH.......since Mitt claimed that he is GUIDED BY HIS FAITH.

You cannot separate the head from the body and still pretend to be COMPLETE.

We do America a disservice when we do not consider a candidate's faith. While it may not be the sole reason to vote/not vote for him, we will be playing the Ostrich if we pretend that FAITH does not matter.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trismegistus22
Crescat virtus per certaminem.
12:32 PM on 10/29/2011
While we americans constantly trumpet how free we are from religious intolerance; our behavior contradicts this illusion. It is nigh impossible for a non-christian to be elected to any federal office. And a non-theist? Not a chance. And so many candidates use their professed religious convictions as a reason to vote for them. Yet they don't think it proper to question what that practically means.
Our elected officers use their personal life experiences and values to make what they perceive to be a better America for all of us. And it is not only religion that has influence. I remember that Mr Kennedy had a mentally handicapped sister. That was probably a contributing factor to the many significant changes for the disabled to obtain the rights so long denied them. Better services became available. Obscene state laws began to be repealed (mandatory sterilization).
We need to know how specific religious views and opinions will influence their rule. And the media must step up and ask the questions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trismegistus22
Crescat virtus per certaminem.
12:31 PM on 10/29/2011
Professor Rosensaft makes an important point about how we americans should view the religious beliefs of politicians. As americans we have a self-perception that we do not judge based upon religious beliefs. Although, Mr Kennedy did have to work very hard to show that the pope wouldn't tell him what to do. So, I suppose that we weren't all that open to catholics. And the religious discrimination against irish and italian immigrants was quite outrageous.

The question to ask is "when can we legitimately use a candidate's religious views as part of the rational for or against that person?"
If a person's religion has clear beliefs which strongly relate to US foreign policy, I really want to know. I don't want a president who believes that war in the middle east will hasten the "second coming" of Jesus, and will work to bring that about. I don't want a president or advisers who don't accept the science of global climate change and our responsibilities because god will take care of us. I don't want a president who is not only opposed to abortion but also birth control or stem cell research, because of religious tenets.I don't want a president who believes that war is always a good choice because god is on our side. I don't want a president who believes that god blesses the rich and therefore we should give them more of our money.
11:16 AM on 10/29/2011
Either way he is doomed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
methodman
10:31 AM on 10/29/2011
I have been looking at your vocabulary. Policy and Process vocabulary don't match religious vocabulary. and I read policy based on definitions of words not on flow of a sentence. Your flow is too ordinary and doesn't back into topics of Math. Always back in some math, Primes, Exponents, Radicals. division and portion additives. See get where I am going? It isn't like reading a novel. So you need to swap friendly than terse per line. It might be cumbersome for readers. However it will match the reality the Wealthy use to screw us. If I can't see the dreams the people who want to screw me have I can't stop them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Equinator
Shovels manure daily
10:06 AM on 10/29/2011
If Rommney was an atheist, would you say the same?
photo
sarah 2003
Eat green -Bite a pundit
09:52 AM on 10/29/2011
"Judge Romney on Policies not faith."
_____________________________________________________________

Ok, I have judged him on his policies, which are behind the curve, like the rest of the Repubs.

I judge him not worthy of being a President.
11:20 PM on 10/30/2011
you mean policies like corporations are people too? But somehow they pay half the tax rate of other people? And they get the bailouts so they can send their factories to China?

Look, all of the problems in your life are your fault. If you don't know enough to chisel on your taxes, dodge the draft, or if you believe what authorities tell you, or if you vote republican, it's YOUR fault.

Who has that spare grenade? We got a GOP debate squad that needs fragging.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tlcpro
Work is not work when you love what you do.
09:17 AM on 10/29/2011
Religion should have nothing to do with politics. Period.
11:21 PM on 10/30/2011
"should" is the operative word. If you believe it, come on down here at low tide, I have some land I want to sell you.
08:53 AM on 10/29/2011
Religion aims to control how people think, which governments have always found a useful tool to their end, to control how people behave. Organized religion has been a con game ever since the first shamans realized it was easier to make a living blessing the hunters' spears than actually hunting for themselves.

I dream of the day when humanity will have evolved to a point where religious faith will be an automatic disqualifier from candidacy for public service.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stefan dangelo
10:20 AM on 10/29/2011
I agree ... religion has nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with controlling the populace.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
gutenmorgen
a.k.a. poopdeck
08:07 AM on 10/29/2011
I have not the slightest desire to examine Mr. Romney's religious beliefs and am at a loss why anyone would waste his/her time on that issue. Unless of course you can convince me that Mr. Romney demands that I start believing in some God, Jewish, Christian, or anyone else.
07:33 AM on 10/29/2011
If one's religion does not impact the person's daily life it isn't much of a religion, or, they are pretenders.

The candidate's religion matters greatly to me. And OBVIOUSLY My religion is the true religion, otherwise I would change.
photo
CanadjunBeef
Remember Jesus, the radical liberal
02:16 AM on 10/29/2011
Romney's statement that "Freedom requires religion" is both false on its face and contrary to the Constitution. It has nothing to do with Mormonism, it is an example of moronism.
01:11 AM on 10/29/2011
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Rosensaft's argument. While I agree that no candidate should be judged by his religion, it is conservatives who have introduced religion into politics. To see one hoisted on his own petard is at once satisfying and frustrating. Satisfying in that it serves him right; if you are going to play the religion card, you can't pull it back when it suits you. Frustrating in the callous disregard almost contempt that any discussion in America of religion in politics belies for any moral position outside those defined by religion. Rosensaft quotes Romney as saying "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Do either understand how offensive that attitude is to those of us who espouse no religion? As an atheist, I can't claim anything near the kind of persecution that those of the Jewish faith have historically suffered. But I can pretty well guarantee that someone who is Jewish will sit in the White House long before an open atheist or even an agnostic will.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Franciscodeflores
Veterans for Peace Member
03:22 AM on 10/29/2011
I'm with you on this one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tc71087
11:55 PM on 10/28/2011
If this country really believed in freedom of religion through respect of practice, this wouldn't be an issue. I cannot say I don't like Romney or Huntsman for their religion, I don't like them for their politics. That is more dangerous than their religion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tlcpro
Work is not work when you love what you do.
09:25 AM on 10/29/2011
I'd say equally dangerous.