Romney's Religious Vision for All?

Mitt Romney's evangelical Christian friends and foes alike can only rejoice. His speech on his faith and religion has resounded in the public square and blown a heavy whiff of religion into our political life. He offered an impassioned account of his devotion to Jesus Christ, his Lord and Savior -- "of mankind." That is his inclusive vision for America.

Romney predictably made a bow to John F. Kennedy's famous speech to Houston ministers in 1960, in which Kennedy promised to fulfill his obligation to the Constitution (a secular document, Romney, et al. notwithstanding), and in the event of a conflict between its commandments and those of his personal conscience, he would resign. Romney made no such commitment.

Kennedy boldly stated that we had far more critical issues to discuss than religion: the spread of communism, the erosion and respect of our power abroad, hunger, and education -- those were the "real issues" to decide the election. War, hunger, education, and despair, Kennedy reminded us, "knew no religious barriers"; he understood they were obscured, and deliberately so, by those who would exploit the issue of his Catholicism.

Kennedy turned to the nation's founders and our subsequent history to argue that separation of church and state had served us well. Not so Romney, who favors a more opaque wall and pointedly rejected the historical meaning of separation. He complained that it had been distorted beyond its original intent. Portraying so-called secular elements and anti-religious groups as straw men menaces, he denounced those who see religion "as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism." Well, at least he didn't capitalize it.

The founders, Romney said, "did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square." Many of the revolutionaries and founders indeed were religious; but many likewise believed in religion as a "private affair." Romney's "originalism" is deeply flawed. What is undeniable is that the founders moved with a calculated purpose and disestablished religion as it had existed in colonial times. Religion would not be the central component of public life, much as Kennedy had said in 1960.

JFK ended his remarks promising to "faithfully execute the office of president" and would "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God." Romney's peroration is more in tune with our times. "Let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty'," he said. Finally, with words approaching an anthem: "God bless the United States of America."

Shades of the early 1950s, when Senator Homer Ferguson (R-MI), a flag-waving Cold Warrior insisted on adding "in God we trust" to the Pledge of Allegiance. Ferguson summed up the congressional mood: "We know that America cannot be defended by guns, planes, and ships alone. Appropriations and expenditure for defense will be of value only if the God under whom we live believes that we are in the right. We should at all times recognize God's province over the lives of our people and over this great Nation." Amen.

In 1962, the Supreme Court struck down a state-mandated and authorized prayer in the public schools. Two days later, President Kennedy deftly defended the decision in a nationally-televised press conference, one of the first of its kind. (Eisenhower's were given on a tape-delayed basis.) "We have in this case a very easy remedy," Kennedy said, "and that is to pray ourselves. We can pray a great deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of our children. I would hope that as a result of this decision, all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us," he concluded, "will support the constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it."

Can we imagine a president today -- or a presidential candidate -- speaking with such candor and historical understanding of American pluralism? (Let alone wit!) The mind boggles.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan's "social agenda" included restoring mandatory school prayers. Five years later safely immune from an election campaign) he called for a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in the classroom. Alas! it was not an election year and the Senate rejected it. Barry Goldwater as a presidential candidate had vigorously denounced the Court's ruling in the early '60s; but in 1985 he voted against Reagan's amendment. Goldwater's turnaround offers a preface to understanding the political manipulation of religious values as a manifestation of symbolic politics.

Jack Kennedy had an eye for history; Romney has only a tin ear. Kennedy de-emphasized the role of religion in politics; Romney only wants to amplify it. God knows there is neither silence nor an absence of religion in the public square.

Stanley Kutler is the author of Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes.

Comments

[LostHearts]

Most politicians are not "atheists", but rather are like the majority of religious people--they go to church to be "seen" and just believe because, well, that's what they were taught.

As an atheist I resent the fact that no one who is an atheist will ever get past step one in the political process. This is the only country where religion and politics go hand in hand despite what our Founding Fathers intended.

Not having a belief in a higher power but making decisions based on rational thought, logic and intelligence is what is sadly needed in the US. Yet if a person claims the even milder term "agnostic" he or she will be ostracized and run out of town.

There are more atheists in the US today then there are Jewish people. But that fact is never bandied about. People of faith might realize that we don't have horns and a tail, and might even be that nice neighbor who lives right next door to you.

After all, we have a President who thinks a god talks to him every night. And the people put him in the highest office of the land--twice. These are sad times indeed.

[janmB]

GREAT that Romney is highly religious but we have a war in IRAQ that has nothing to do with his religion, the economy is down the toilet for most Americans, the country is in huge debt, and the USA has no credibility in the world left for negotiating power.
Whether he believes in God or not isn't going to solve the above problems we have. We need an experienced, brilliant mind, communicator who will bring the same aboard with her or him because you see what happens when we have not had that for the past 7 years.

[ibsteve2u]

Religions don't make good governments - they find it too easy to justify anything they want to do with chapter and verse.

I'm surprised Romney doesn't consider that; his predecessors in his faith seem to have committed at least one massacre - and that was when they were a lot closer in time to the teachings of their respected Founder Joseph Smith, Jr.

I'm not making an accusation against any one faith; history would make it appear that they all periodically delight in a massacre or two.

Darn good reason to keep religion out of politics, if you ask me.

[Liberterna]

Mitt Romney isn't fit for the Presidency of the United States of America.

[gems]

Religious believes should NEVER be brought up and neither ask the candidates questions about their faith. WE HAVE A COUNTRY TO RUN, and we can't waist our time with questions or issues that are all nothing but PERSONAL.
Gemma

[wrabbitt]

There is a sign at my door" please don't tell me about your religion i'm perfectly happy with the one I have" The Mennonites can't read or the "beware of dog" sign was to obvious. The Church of latter day losers also, tried to get by the dog but, their god couldn't convince the dog either. We don't need a moron president (Yes, i spelled that right). And huckabee already has his vice president nominee but, the dog won't let him thru either, Give me liberty, or give me Health care...

[pollyanna]

I am waiting for someone to tell me how Mitt Romney got all that free TV time. I'd like all the networks and CSPAN to give an hour to Dennis Kucinich so the whole world could hear his ideas! DK can't even get equal time to speak in debates, unless he asks himself a question! Talk about wit and intellegence, too!

[Zanti]

First, I agree with most of your essay--Romney's inane speech can be paraphrased as, "America is not a religious nation; however, America IS a religious nation." Romney is a shallow idiot, and his views on religion and its role in politics are dead wrong.

My problem is with the notion of the Constitution as a secular document. To the extent it's obviously not a sacred document, fine. But bear in mind that the average church bulletin (potluck announcements, choir practice, etc.) is a secular document, too. Assuming the C. is a secular text, what follows from this fact? That, for instance, we're a secular nation?

And that idea is way popular today. In reality, such an assertion requires much more than postulating from the matter-of-fact and worldly tone of what is, really, a bureaucratic (however poetical and brilliant) text. If it were all as easy as pointing to a passage and saying "Well, it says here...," then we would have no need for the Supreme Court or for Constitutional scholars.

There's also the belief that, because the C. goes out of its way NOT to endorse religion, that we are therefore a secular nation--as if the only alternative to theocracy were secularism. In reality, if we don't want to go to church, we stay home--we don't erect a church to Satan in our back yard.

The founders were neutral on matters of religion, which ought to make us suspect they were neutral regarding secularism. To forbid a religious test for office but embrace a secular one would be hypocritical and counterproductive. Our founders did not intend to create a religious OR secular nation but one as neutral as possible in terms of dictating ideology. The less dictation, in our founders' view, the better.

I’m sorry if religion is resounding too loudly in the public square for your taste. I have a similar problem with sports culture, but I have to live with it. Those are the breaks.

[factanonverba]

It is a uniquely American habit of politicians in the United States to do two things: to speak on behalf of the American People and to somehow portend to speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers. Rarely do politicians outside the US aim to speak on behalf of their entire respective populaces, the only instances that come to mind are Hilter and Churchill in the midst of war. Even Soviet and Chinese leaders rarely invoked their national populaces though no doubt they quite often invoked the proletariat. Until Hugo Chavez came along, few politicians elsewhere invoked founding fathers. Castro sometimes invokes Jose Marti but it is rare.

[JohnJames]

Let's get over the idea that religion is a spiritual matter, except for a very few. For most, it's a means of worldly advancement and that includes all who wear it on their sleeves. If we Americans don't wake up, we can be sure we'll be pulling one another's hair out over God while the rest of the world moves on and leaves us behind.

[clarkbp]

Mitt Romney has said that he will ‘put his hand on the Bible” and take the oath of office. My question is simple, which Bible is he going to put his hand on?

I think it is a fair question.

http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/12/07/the-mormon-bible-and-mitt-romney/

[RickO]

If Romney is a devout Mormon (and either you are or you're not), I'd like to hear him try to explain "Kolob" to the rest of us. If anyone thinks he's qualified to lead the free world, let's hear his take on that central mormon belief, the one that makes Mormonism sound a bit more like Scientology.

[starboymikey]

C'mon you guys. Stop dumping on Mitt. He's exhibited great cowardice under pressure from evangelicals, making him the perfect candidate for president.

[Sciguy]

We don't have separation of church and state in the U.S. anyway. If we did, would government offices be closed on December 25th? Before 1870, they weren't. Now they are. Separation of church and state, my hiney.

Just a thought.

[JosephHill]

Let's hope there will come a day when a 'Stoic' can be elected President...again.