Listen to this article

I think Mr. Romney's speech had more to do with making the appropriate signs to blocs of voters he hopes to attract than to speaking to America, in general.  That is a shame, if he wins his party’s nomination we must all decide whether to vote for him or not.  That said, these were my thoughts while reading his words:

 

"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us."

 

How is this different from when radical violent anarchists sought to destroy us a century ago?  How is this different from any type of extremist who has concluded that violence is required to remove someone or something they oppose?  Should the tactics applied to combat this violence differ because we are dealing with violence motivated by religion?  Are violent religious extremists more or less rational (or sensible) than extremists with unusual political or economic ideologies — or the merely crazy (who may use the religious or ideological words even if neither is the root for their motives.)

 

"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us."

 

Let me offer the perspective of a religion scholar.  I chose this profession in part because this type of issue concerned me:  religions have, again and again, done things that not what you would imagine of them at their best.

 

I discovered along the way that religious scholarship is often not helpful in defusing these issues.  The Five Pillars of Islam do not explain our current situation any better than the Nicene Creed explains Christians who use violence against abortion clinics.  Yes, it is very important to understand Islam and its history, but to understand why factions of religions choose violence, one must understand that  these reasons have more to do with culture, economics, geopolitics, and recent history (i.e. history within the past 200 years.)  These are the same forces that would make factions of any cohesive group resort to violence, be they a displaced nation or the members of an opposition party in politics.  In my limited knowledge of sociology, nothing separates this kind of factional religious violence from secular factional violence.

 

True, it may also help to factor in the psychology of authoritarian repression and the inculcation of narrow-minded ideologies — but those are just as likely to appear in the political (or economic) world as the religious one.  The same techniques of propaganda, permissible thoughts, and limited information are liable to be used in each case, religious or not.

 

My field can offer general background on Islam, it can provide how the religion has changed after the events of the past two centuries, we can explain the workings of ideas shared by many religions:  the idea that the world will end, or that the impure must be eliminated, or that virtue will be rewarded.  This may help ... but what will most help is a skilled and worldly diplomat who knows the politics and psychology at work and who is accustomed to building compromises out of real practical things (military movements, economic exchanges, etc.) that will make the tactic of violence less useful and less appealing.

 

Those who are Muslim must decide what their religion is and how they wish it to behave and be seen in the community of nations and faiths; they may try to persuade their coreligionists accordingly of whatever they conclude.

 

Back to Candidate Romney’s speech:

 "If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator."

 

All of our founders, to a man?  On which occasion(s) and on what terms?  Was this part of the common language of the day or did it require a specific theology?  Was it an expression of their deeply personal feelings or intended as a mandate for the nation, in perpetuity?

 

"In John Adams' words ...."

 

You've just jumped ahead to 1800's, to a  president who served two generations after the nation's founding:  this does not support your contention.

 

(Worse, I find this quote cited on many political websites but I cannot trace it back to Mr. Adams, himself, in order to read it in context.  I did, however, find this on his burial place and his and his family's religion: www.uuquincy.org/projects/stamps/4johnquincy.htm)

 

[If you want to understand why being a descendent of John Adams was not the same thing as being John Adams, read The Education of Henry Adams.]

 

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

 

If freedom requires anything then it is not free, it is constrained.  (And religions have  flourished when a government mandates one and punishes or roots out all others:  Mormons are painfully familiar with that fact.)

 

"Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

 

Freedom is a relatively new idea that has been slow to gain traction; religion has been doing fine for millenia.  The fact that Mr. Romney feels this speech is necessary shows that we are still experimenting with those two elements.

 

"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty"

 

Alas, we also have a lengthy (but less grand) tradition of bigotry towards (and against) religions:  Native American religions, Catholicism, Quakers (and many examples among other Protestants), Mormons ... even the Masons (with their mild stricture that its members must believe in God).  Christianity has not always extended the mercy it promises for sinners or the wayward, nor the charity so praised by Paul.

 

"I do not define my candidacy by my religion."

 

As the first of something, I am not sure the public will let you.  Any president who is the first of their category will have to face this issue, in this race and in the future.

 

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President"

 

That would be this man and this speech, to provide the allusion:  http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/JFK+Pre-Pres/Address+of+Senator+John+F.+Kennedy+to+the+Greater+Houston+Ministerial+Association.htm

 

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion'"

 

That would be this man and this speech:  http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

 

Lincoln was not, as Romney points out, talking about religion:

 

"I know the American People are much attached to their Government;—I know they would suffer much for its sake;—I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

 

Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected. The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others .... Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, …. become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

 

…. When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.—I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

 

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law."

 

(For some background on Abraham Lincoln’s religion, see: www.christianitytoday.com/holidays/memorial/features/33h010.html)

 

Back to Mr. Romney:

 "We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God."

 

I think Mr. Romney is confused, here. There have been legal efforts to remove religious displays on state  or federal property, since such displays can appear to be endorsements or sponsorship of one religion over another by the state or national government.  There has also been a new sensitivity in the business world that private companies have (and serve) customers of all faiths (who also do not appreciate the appearance that a company endorses or favors customers from one particular faith.)  It has never been the government's business to teach a creed or create a tie-in deal with any one religion.  Private companies are welcome to be religious as private entities [and play Christmas carols, to almost everyone’s eventual irritation as the month draws on] — but a faith-based affiliation will limit their customer base and affect their PR.

 

Endorsing and promoting religion is the business of churches and other houses of worship:  if you miss the crèche in your town square, set one up on your church's front lawn or window.  Try placing the shoe on another foot:  would you like an altar to another deity in the town square during another religion's appropriate season?

 

I think of it as a bit like segregation:  once the “Whites Only” signs are down, there are still signs that non-whites are unwelcome (and in danger if they ‘trespass’.)  Even without “Posted Christian Property” on state and federal land or buildings this nation is full of signs that only Christianity is a ‘real’ religion.  (If you don’t understand what I’m talking about befriend a non-Christian and ask them about it.)

 

(If you think that Christianity should be the only real religion, then I must add that all religions feel they are the only real, true, right, accurate, beneficial etc. religion.)

 

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."

 

You will have to do better than quoting phrases that were added to our common lexicon within the last 100 years:  show me the document where the founders required religion on public, federal property — and just which religion, as well.  (Please demonstrate this from our founding documents alone and our successive legal tradition and do not bring in the personal views of one or another founding father.  Drawing up a charter is not the same as writing a spiritual autobiography.)

 

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word."

 

Again, please, footnotes.  This bare assertion does not prove the point you seek to make.

 

"Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests."

 

Exactly which faith would that be?  (And must we abide by it exactly as it was in the 1770's or are any modifications permitted?)

 

"but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

 

Mr. Romney, I think you are quoting this:  "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." —Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:211, Papers 1:135

(source: etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm )

 

The author of the Jefferson Bible (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html , to read it: nothingistic.org/library/jefferson/jesus/ ), Thomas Jefferson held these views on religion and government:  etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

 

He is remembered also as the author of the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom:

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

 

(So far Mr. Romney has managed to quote famous Americans who disagree with his views on religion and government...)

 

"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage."

 

Then I am a little puzzled at how you would treat atheists who hold public offices.

 

"They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common."

 

I am glad you know which moral issues we all agree on, in unanimity.  That would not include slavery, who can vote, homosexuality, abortion, the use of drugs, or certain petitions of the terminally ill.  I hope you can tell us which issues those are, perhaps — and why only we as Americans hold them (vs. the Canadians, for example, who have always struck me as decent folk.)

 

While you are on that topic, could you explain why we are free to violate the Geneva Conventions?  (It seemed like a good bench march for the common morality of many nations, with decades of consensus behind it.  Why do we now find it so disagreeable?)

 

"We believe that every single human being is a child of God"

 

You may believe it:  I know people of faith who do not believe that the divine created humanity, others who do not believe that every person is equally under the favor of God, and yet others who do not believe in God (yet belong to a religion.)  They are all Americans.

 

"John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'"

 

I cannot find the context of this phrase, however I did find something on Mr. Adam's religion:  http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnadams.html

 

(So far Romney has quoted 2 Unitarians and a man deeply admired by them: www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasjefferson.html  Contemporary American religion is not my field, but I would never otherwise have placed the Mormons and the Unitarians in the same basket.)

 

"and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator"

 

Have you ever considered the possibility that this was, perhaps, the time's way of saying "inherent rights" and that it might not have been the endorsement of a particular system of theology?  If it is a mention of God, is it possible to mention God without pointing to a single, larger system of belief?

 

"We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny"

 

My rule of thumb in choosing who to vote for is not whether they believe a certain creed or a certain set of political or economic ideas:  it is whether they are a kook.

Mr. Romney believes we have a common religious foundation that gives us a common set of morals, and he wishes to have religious displays on public property.  It is likely he served as an evangelist in his teens, many young Mormon men do.  He has yet to show me just how he will keep his zeal out of his governance and policy, even if he chooses to call them 'morals' rather than 'beliefs'.  Without this there is a danger he could become the tyrant he decries:  it is easy to think that just because I hold to a view strongly that everyone else (at least somewhat) agrees with me.  I would think growing up in a minority religion would prepare Mr. Romney for understanding how deeply we can differ in our adherences, yet we are all still Americans.

 

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends"

 

I am glad he feels confident of this.  Has he been to the Creationism Museum I mentioned in a prior entry?

 

"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."

 

Good as far as it goes, but what of those Americans who do not pray?  Who do not believe in an Almighty?  Who would never use that specifically Christian term for the divine?

 

"And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

 

This is the first time Mr. Romney has mentioned religious plurality in his speech.  He has yet to include non-believers and he does not explain how this fits with the single religious foundation he envisions for this nation.

 

"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia"

 

A man may pray from fear, or at the beginning of something solemn, without writing that prayer into his work.

 

(And there may have been motives other than piety at work:  http://candst.tripod.com/backfire.htm)

 

Samuel Adams' views on religion and government: press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions15.html

(Answers.com suggests he was Congregationalist.)

 

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.'

Both quotes from "My Country 'Tis of Thee" lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/ihas/loc.natlib.ihas.200000012/default.html by Samuel Francis Smith, Baptist minister (and professor at Colby College), www.jstor.org/view/09588434/ap030427/03a00630/0

 

Of the founders, Mr. Romney has mentions Samuel Adams and John Adams, but he has not shown that the Constitution established an official religion for America (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html) nor that we have adopted a single creed or code of ethics in the years, after.

The Constitution was signed after a century of religious war in Europe, and after centuries of cultural and political turmoil brought by the schisms created by the Reformation.  America was an experiment in founding a nation without an official state religion.  Mr. Romney's difficulties with the complexities and ambiguities of religion and the origins of America (and his strange choices of who to quote to support his views)  do not reassure me that he understands the historical background of the role religion played in our nation's charter.  (And since.) 

I don't ask my president to be a great historian but I do ask him (or her, it may be) to navigate complexity and understand views different than his own.

He also has not reassured  me, as he intended, that his faith and his policy would be separate (and by what?)   Perhaps he would.  Yet he spent much of the speech giving signals to those who would dearly enjoy government endorsement of their particular spiritual views, who wish to see that as their right — forgetting the rights of other Americans and that fact that every religion would like to be taught in schools and endorsed by the national government as the most right and fitting moral guide of our nation.

The point of watching our common religious language is not to stamp out religion, it is to keep religion in religious places and out of places that must serve the common good for non-religious motives.  (Or does anyone think a faith-based DMV would be a good idea?)  I seem to recall certain words about a closet versus the street corner, but I will leave reflections on goodness and virtue to my readers.

 

-Kushana

(My source for Mr. Romney's speech was:  http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Faith_In_America)