  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 A Bumpy DetourPosted on Dec 6, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—It’s not easy being a politician from a minority faith, especially when it comes to explaining your own traditions—sometimes even to yourself. Al Smith, the first Catholic to be nominated for president by a major party, found his faith under vicious attack in the 1928 campaign. Called upon to answer for the content of various papal encyclicals—documents issued by the pope in Rome—the New York Democrat turned to his aides in frustration one day with a plea: “Will someone tell me what the hell a papal encyclical is?” Mitt Romney, in his remarkable speech Thursday on religious liberty, wisely chose not to present a theological treatise or offer an exegesis of the Book of Mormon. Instead, he challenged Americans to live up to the demands of pluralism rooted in liberty. “Religious tolerance,” he asserted, rightly, “would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.” Romney’s speech at the George H.W. Bush Library in Texas was by turns brilliant and frustrating, inspiring yet also transparently political in its effort to find the precise balance that would satisfy Republican primary voters. When he spoke of the dangers of subjecting candidates to doctrinal investigations, Romney had perfect pitch. His opponents—particularly Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister who is reaping a great harvest of evangelical Christian support in Iowa—should join him in warning against religious bigotry. “There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines,” Romney said. “To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.” There was also his poetic assertion that “we do not insist on a single strain of religion—rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.” But in light of all this, it was a neck-snapping moment when Romney declared: “What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.” With those words, Romney legitimized the most fundamental test being imposed upon him in some evangelical Christian quarters. He was telling them he deserved an A on the religious exam they cared about most. He has every right to declare his faith in Jesus, but didn’t his profession, in this context, undercut his central and proper contention that a candidate should not be asked to “describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines”? I share Romney’s view that “liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government,” and believe, against the view of some of my more militantly atheist friends, that the Jewish and Christian traditions point us toward freedom and equality. Romney was also right that “every single human being is a child of God.” This is at the root of the belief system of many liberals who are also religious. Romney was echoing—unconsciously to be sure—none other than Bill Clinton, who declared in a 1992 campaign speech at Notre Dame that “all of us must respect the reflection of God’s image in every man and woman.” But then Romney had to go further. “Freedom,” he said, “requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” And to those who see religion as “merely a private affair with no place in public life,” he had this to say: “It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America—the religion of secularism. They are wrong.” Well. Religion can certainly be conducive to freedom. But does freedom require religion? Is religion always conducive to freedom? Does freedom not also thrive in far more secular societies than our own? Isn’t the better course for our nation to seek solidarity among lovers of liberty, secular as well as religious? After all, it was a coalition of believers and secularists, as the Princeton scholar Jeffrey Stout has noted, that sent a communist dictatorship tumbling down in Pope John Paul II’s native Poland. And Romney’s knock on the “religion of secularism” was pure pandering to the religious right. I hope Romney’s eloquence about “our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty” persuades voters who need convincing that it would be terribly divisive if his Mormonism were a factor in how he fares in the primaries. I wish he had felt less need to water down his boldness with politically convenient assertions that would also divide us, just in different ways. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Clinton's Obama Blunder Next item: Calling on Congress to Stop a War Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By rachel, December 19, 2007 at 9:42 am # Okay, fair enough. Good articles, but . . . I don’t see how my statement is wrong. I basically said… like, a summary of the Tripoli article. It’s my government book (not me) making the statements about the Constitution having mostly Judeo-Christian influences. I’m aware of the fact that it’s completely secular . . .
By rachel, December 19, 2007 at 9:35 am # Okay, fair enough, but how is my statement wrong? I basically said...like, the same exact thing you had me read. I know that quite a few of the founding fathers were deists and whatall. It’s the book that’s claiming this, not me, there’s a whole entire chapter on how Judeo-Christian morals were the basis for the Constitution and America was founded on religious freedom and yada ya. Not being critical. Thanks for the articles, I’m just not sure what I said that was wrong based on the articles you provided.
By rachel, December 12, 2007 at 10:49 am # #118896 by Paolo on 12/08#118896 by Paolo on 12/08 at 8:00 am Really, all religions are subject to easy mockery. If you believe in a particular religion, go ahead. Enjoy yourself. But don’t make your religious beliefs a basis for law. Good law requires a logical--not a religious--foundation. I couldn’t have said it better, Paolo . . . I think having faith is fine, as long as you don’t get preachy and don’t use it to justify horrific acts. But I just don’t understand why people need religion to form their ethics, or why people seem to think that without the particular morals of Christianity and Judaism, America would not exist. My government book (I’m a high school student) gives most of the credit for our Constitution to Christianity, and damn near uses that to justify religion in government. Disgusting.
By Conservative Yankee, December 10, 2007 at 4:54 am # 119137 by Enemy of State119137 by Enemy of State on 12/09 at 4:48 pm “...This is how they intend to separate the(sic) lerned people of conscience from the common people.” Maybe the Learned folks believing they have the “higher moral ground” is what separates society??? Two boys just came back to Northern Penobscot County in government issue body bags. The old paper mill town to which they returned has been forgotten by the corporatists and the “learned intellectuals” alike. It’s just a sad old mill town like many across this once vigorous country, where the ordinary, once working, stiffs supply nothing except the cannon-fodder which is their young. Piss on the bunch of you!
By Roger Lafontaine, December 9, 2007 at 11:44 am # Romney's 'read between the lines'Romney’s ‘read between the lines’ speech was an exercise in maintaining a mirage, the mirage of utter conventionality that he has worked all his life to sustain. He appealed to ‘tolerance’, a quality very little appreciated by those his speech was addressed to, by the way, but it was a very limited tolerance. In other words ‘I share your prejudices too against homosexuals and non-Christians. This in a nutshell is the same problem that Mormons as a whole have. They are conventional to the extreme and yet they have this strange little secret so to say.
By May, December 9, 2007 at 8:44 am # There is an excellent op-edThere is an excellent op-ed by Ann McFeatters (Scripps-Howard) out today regarding Mitt’s speech. (If you go to SH website, there are two articles by her for some reason, the one mentioning his disdain for atheists, etc. is the one I refer to here.) In his speech he slams the “loss of christianity” in Europe and his disdain for agnostics and atheists in this country. That should concern anyone who is not a raving christer. It implies that he would NOT represent people who choose not to believe that Jesus is the son of god, etc. etc. It implies that this speech was solely for the purpose of soothing the fears of evanglicals. It kind of leaves a small percentage of people out in the cold. It may be a small group, but we’re tax paying citizens none the less. It did little to assuage my personal fears that his religion would not rule his leadership, on the contrary, he seemed to make it clear that his religion WOULD color his leadership and that his religion is just as good as any other christian denomination. THAT is what we must fear!
By g randy primm, December 8, 2007 at 8:15 pm # Cyrena: The United States did notCyrena: The United States did not have an “official” motto until 1956. Previously, the “unofficial” motto had been “E Pluribus Unum” and it is still used on official stationary. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase under Honest Abe pestered Congress for obscure reasons to have the motto “In God We Trust” imprinted on the national currency. They humored him in 1864 by allowing the Treasury to print said motto on the 2 cent piece (which shows what Congress thought about it). Eventually, the motto was snuck onto paper currency (1957). Several presidents are recorded as protesting the use of the phrase as a motto for differing reasons. The motto was adopted as an “official” motto by an act of Congress in 1956 (during the height of the Red Scare it should be noted, and almost one hundred years after it was first proposed by Sec. Chase). Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were the members of the Committee of the Great Seal who designed the Seal itself and invented the three mottoes that appear on both the inverse and obverse of the Seal (printed all all US currency), to wit: E Pluribus Unum ("Out of Many, One"), Annuit Coeptis ("He Blesses Our Beginning")and Novo Ordo Seclorum ("A New Order of the Ages"). Note: “sec-lor-um” is not the same as “sec-u-lorum,” and DOES NOT translate into “New World Order” as the wingnuts would have you believe. Presently, members of Congress can choose which motto to have printed on their official stationary.
By VirginiaFromVirginia, December 8, 2007 at 7:58 pm # When God and Bush wereWhen God and Bush were having their little chat and God told W to attack Iraq, why didn’t God tell W that there were no WMDs in Iraq? Why didn’t God tell W that there was NO CONNECTION between 9-11 and Iraq? Why didn’t God tell W that the yellowcake/Niger documents were forged? And why ....? and some more why .....
By Margaret from Portland Oregon, December 8, 2007 at 7:53 pm # I wish government would getI wish government would get out of the religious business, when Kennedy was running all the people could talk about is how the pope will run this country. Along comes ole Bubba George, a good ole boy and suddenly because religion is evengalichal (meaning the protestants) its o.k. for religion to be in politics especially since this is the reason ole George got elected, along with stealing Fla. and in 04, Ohio. But of course the news media never did pick up on this thing, only mentioned it in passing because of Mitt. Mitt is not going to be our president, neither is McCain, wheather Huckabee will get to be our next president is debatable. Of course the Democrats that Obama will be a great president, and he would, but the south has not changed enough to elect Obama, because he is only half white. I know Fla. will not go for Obama. That leaves it up to the rest of the country. And it is a moot point because I am sure they are figuring out how to steal this election. Soon this experiment in Democracy will be no more.
By Margaret from Portland,Oregon, December 8, 2007 at 7:43 pm # If there is supposed toIf there is supposed to be a seperation of government from religion than what did Shrub do when he wanted religion in the government, he did it to get the concertative vote to think that we are supposed to have religion seperate from government and then along comes George, and to think that this country was afraid that Kennedy would have the pope running this country and when Kennedy came into office he was a great president, never talked too much religion. Then along comes George and he thinks that there is too much government so he thinks that churches can pick up some slack, so we got Intelligent design, his brother Neil in the school business (selling books) and making schools buy certain equipment so the family can make a profit. The “No Child Left Behind was a ploy to make the schools that were doing badly reflect on the teachers who are so low paid for all the education that they had to get for this low paying job. One wonders if when the time comes that people will be doing the job that Americans don’t want to do will all students have to learn Spanish, because if more and more demands are made on teachers they just might give it up and then where will we be. What might happen is education will only be for those who can pay for it so the people of privilege will rise to the top because inner schools are getting bad, and those students in New Orleans are allready behind the curve, those who can afford to sent their children to private school will win the city schools will barely .
By Joe R., December 8, 2007 at 6:03 pm # Trusting anyone with the bombTrusting anyone with the bomb that believes in these ancient bronze age myths is stupid. Humanity is facing extinction and we need someone who can use reason not fantasy, science not bullshit, to help us make the right choices in the future if we are even going to have a future. Same goes for Hucklebee. He has a degree in divinity. So What! That is about as useful as tits on a rock. He is nothing but a glorified Witch Doctor. This country has real problems and we are trying to pray our way out of this mess. We tried that last time and voted Bush in. Thought we were voting for St. Francis and ended up with Caligula.
By Conservative Yankee, December 8, 2007 at 5:59 am # Although all religion is oppressive,Although all religion is oppressive, domineering, and paternal, Mormonism goes just that whit further, and could be described as a “cult”. I would find it difficult to vote for any candidate who believed (fervently) in the tooth-fairy. I would find it impossible to vote for someone who held the Mormon cult as their personal guiding path, too much “magical thinking”. “Magical thinking” is good for authors of fiction, people who work with preschoolers, or designers of theme parks, but as “commander in Chief” the persuasion becomes dangerous. I suppose that makes me intolerant. Oh well.
By Bladerunner, December 7, 2007 at 10:51 am # I'd rather vote for anI’d rather vote for an atheist. God talk=my favorite fairytale. It would be nice to have reason and logic in a political debate, not someone’s version of the invisible pink unicorn, come up every 5 mins.
By mike, December 7, 2007 at 7:13 am # Has anybody heard about this.Has anybody heard about this. I have seen one report that romney has made the statment that no muslims will be include in his cabinet ? If this is the case then this flies in the face of accepting different views. Add Your Comment |
|
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article