Sherry Chandler » Public faith (with Romney)
Public faith (with Romney)
Brian McLaren, author of Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope had this to say recently at the TPM Café bookclub discussion:
…those of us who are Christians have too often lost the plot of the Bible and the life of Jesus.
…
It’s as if religious people, among whom I guess I would be counted, have got a boxful of puzzle pieces (the stories and verses of the Bible), but somebody switched lids on us so we’re trying to assemble them according to the wrong picture. As a result, we read the Bible and articulate our faith primarily as an answer to the question, “How do we get individual souls into heaven after we die?” Instead, I’ve become convinced that the primary question that lies behind the Biblical text, and the life of Jesus, is more like this: The world is in a mess because of human ignorance, greed, lust, pride, bigotry, injustice, and so on. What is God doing, and what can we do, in response?
…
So, working from the puzzle-lid they’ve been given, many religious folk, when they enter the public arena, predictably crusade about primarily personal sexual issues and tend to ignore systemic issues like institutional racism, economic injustice, militarism, and environmental plundering. And that infuriates – rightly, I would say – progressive people who see how important these social and systemic issues are. They resent – rightly, I would say – the implication that the religious people are “moral” and “values-oriented,” when really, the progressives are no less concerned about morality and values: it’s just that they’re tending to focus on more social and systemic dimensions of morality.
But if “religious people” have got off track a bit, according to McLaren, so have those who are secular:
…But here’s the problem I think some non-religious folks need to see a bit more clearly: none of us can actually keep our opinions out of the agora, God-smacked or not. Our deepest values and beliefs travel with us, inside our brains or hearts or guts or whatever.
As a person with deep religious beliefs, I may choose – either as a matter of politeness or convention or law – not to make them overt in public. I often choose to do exactly this, especially when talking about politics: I’m only focusing on religion this week in this blog because I was invited to do so. But even when I’m silent about my beliefs, I can’t pretend they’re not there, because they inspire or influence nearly every decision I make.
I hope you can follow me, because I think this tension is kind of doubled-back on itself: On the one hand, if I make my beliefs or assumptions overt, it can be annoying to those who don’t share them. But if I am forced to keep them covert, I feel I am being denied free speech - and am being less than fully honest and forthright. On the other hand, if everybody is always referring to their beliefs and authorities as the basis for whatever it is they’re advocating – quoting the Bible or Quran or Isaac Azimov, for that matter – it quickly becomes an exercise in poor communication, since we’re trying to draw universally binding conclusions from premises we don’t all universally share. But conversely, if everybody is covert about their beliefs, we aren’t really communicating either.
So basically, we all need to treat one another with some respect.
But it is one thing to treat religious beliefs with respect, to recognize the prominent role that religion has played in some of the most important social movements of our history. And another to pander to the Religious Right as they re-write history. Mitt Romney chose to do the latter in his Thursday speech:
Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
…
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. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It’s as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
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.
“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’
Just as a matter of fact, the phrase “under God” was added to our pledge in 1951, during the McCarthy era, as a reaction to “godless Communism.” The Pledge of Allegiance itself was created in the late 19th Century for a boys’ magazine called Youth Companion. The phrase “In God We Trust” was added to our currency after the Civil War. The founders didn’t do it.
Rather than assuring us, as did Kennedy, that he believes in the separation of church and state, he is assuring us that church and state are one. It’s very dangerous.
See Juan Cole on the religion of the founders and the dangers of a “soft theocracy.” He says, in part:
Kennedy strongly affirmed the separation of religion and state. Romney wants to dragoon us into a soft theocracy (not as a Mormon but as a Republican allied to the Pat Robertsons of the world). Kennedy wanted to be accepted as an American by other Americans. Romney wants to be accepted as a conservative Christian by other conservative Christians.
This conundrum is the price the Republican Party is paying for pandering to the religious Right. Can a secular person even win the Republican nomination any more? If you make yourself captive of the Protestant Right, then you will discover that they believe Mormons are heretics. The Republican Party has established its own litmus test, and since it has been a dominant party in recent years, we’ve all been affected by it. Romney’s plight in finding it hard to be accepted by that constituency mirrors the plight of secular and unchurched Americans, on whom the very people Romney is sucking up to want to impose their narrow and sectarian values.
Kevin Drum characterizes this speech as deeply offensive. He reacts thus:
I can’t tell you how much this pisses me off. I’m well aware that this is par for the course among Republican politicians these days, and Romney is doing nothing more than engaging in what’s become routine conservative disparagement of those of us who aren’t religious. But the cowardice and pandering here is just phenomenal. Not only does Romney not have the guts to toss in even a single passing phrase about the nonreligious, as JFK did, he went out of his way to insist that “freedom requires religion,” that no movement of conscience is possible without religion, and that judges had better respect our “foundation of faith” lest our country’s entire greatness disappear. And that was just the warmup.
I know, I know. He’s just doing what he has to do. Evangelical base and all that. But I’m not religious, and yet, mirabile dictu, I still manage to support freedom, have a conscience, and understand the law. I’m tired of people implying otherwise.
Amen!
Oh, and contrary to the Bible Belt Bloggers prediction, the NYTimes did not approve (they’re good on the founders, too):
Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office.
Meanwhile, here’s what happens when you elect a president who says Jesus Christ is his favorite philosopher. The CIA destroyed the videos. Just trust us. No torture here.
Possibly related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Leave a comment