Recently I re-watched Kennedy's pre-election address on religion in which he bluntly told a group of Houston ministers that the separation of church and state is "absolute." It was not a receptive audience, the chairman warning the ministers to "be polite," show "good Christian behavior" and prove that the South was not a hotbed of religious intolerance. The applause for Kennedy was infrequent and tepid.
Not for Mitt Romney. A Mormon elder, he last month visited the more congenial Bush Library near Houston, was introduced by the first President Bush and was frequently interrupted by applause, especially when saying things like "my religious convictions will inform my presidency," "the oath of office becomes my highest promise to God" and "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."
He came nowhere close to repeating Kennedy's clear language: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," and it is costing him.
Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister by profession, and Romney finished one-two in the Iowa caucuses last week, and three-two in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary -- a second consecutive one-two finish by the elder and the minister interrupted only by the resurrection of John McCain. Huckabee, an also-ran when campaigning began last year, has risen on the strength of his faith-based views. He is one of three GOP candidates (the others, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback have since dropped out), on the record as not believing in evolution. He would be our first post-Darwin "creationist" president -- though I have doubts about George W. Bush.
The rise of religion in presidential politics is relatively new and would astound the Founding Fathers, who thought they were putting all that behind them. Through most of our history, candidates have striven to leave religion out of politics, and it was not until the latter part of the past century that the "born again" political phenomenon came along with Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, both southerners. Bush has even proclaimed Jesus Christ as his favorite "philosopher," raising the question of whether he knows the difference between religion and philosophy, two very separate disciplines.
Like Kennedy, Romney would be the first of his faith to become president. His religion, even more than Kennedy's, is an issue in his politics because it is obscure, secret and not always highly esteemed. Polling on religion done by the Pew Research Center last month showed that Mormonism trails only atheism and Islam in unfavorable views of Americans. Interestingly, Mormonism was viewed most unfavorably by the cohort that normally esteems faith-based values most -- white evangelical Protestants -- 36 percent of which said they could not vote for a Mormon.
Romney needs those people to become the nominee, and he actively solicited them in his Houston speech, referring to appointment of judges "who do not separate us from God" and attacking those intent "on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism." Many on the religious right make the weird argument that secularism is a religion, and by embracing it the state violates the First Amendment. For them, separation of church and state is forbidden by the First Amendment.
The Pew poll shows why Mormonism poses a political problem for Romney, and why he made his Houston speech. According to Pew:
"Even though a majority of the public views Mormonism as a Christian religion, most Americans say it is very different from their own religion. Among non-Mormons who express a religious preference, more than six-in-ten (62 percent) say that Mormonism and their own religion are very different; just a quarter says that Mormonism and their own religion have a lot in common."
Consider these two statements from Romney's Houston speech: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom;" "freedom and religion endure together or perish alone." Both point to the centrality of religion in Mormon political life.
And both are demonstrably wrong:
QED. Historically, there are simply too many cases of religion imposed at the cost of freedom to give any credence to Romney's statements. In Mormonism itself, according to such Mormon authors such as Terry Givens and Wallace Stegner, a tradition of constraint exists which is not always compatible with freedom.
Stegner, one of our finest Western writers, credits the Mutual Improvement Associations, the so-called "Mormon Mutuals," whose job is to instill religious fervor in the young, with the result that there is "little apostasy" among Mormons, so "little inclination to break with the parental system." Givens speaks of the "uniquely cohesive bond that characterizes Mormon wards" which grows out of the "sheer amount of time that Mormons spend together," always away from non-Mormons.
Unlike Kennedy, Romney's Houston speech did not dispel doubts about his fidelity to the Constitution and to the presidential oath of office rather than to the tenants of his faith. Iowans saw the problem, so did voters in New Hampshire and so do the rest of us.
James O. Goldsborough has written on foreign affairs for four decades, both from the United States and abroad, where he worked as a foreign correspondent for The New York Herald Tribune, International Herald Tribune and Newsweek magazine for 14 years, reporting from more than 40 countries. Visit his website here. Submit a letter to the editor here.
Comments so far on this story:
1. LCb wrote on January 10, 2008 12:32 AM:
"So would you also disagree with Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence?"
2. Edgar wrote on January 10, 2008 10:58 AM:
"LCb, yes he would, because he is a bigot. He has already, along with his good buddy Keith Taylor, amply demonstrated his anti-Semitism on this very site. Like an alcoholic who has gone from bad to worse, he can't help himself and keeps coming back for one more drink of bigotry."
3. JR wrote on January 10, 2008 11:31 AM:
"Thomas Jefferson authored an Act of Religious Freedom for the state of Virginia; it was one of his produest accomplishments, as he stated in his own writings. Its purpose was to allow people to worship as they pleased, without fear of the state intruding on their religious actions. The Declaration states that all men have inherent rights, derived from a Creator, which are inalienable. Nowhere in that document did Jefferson go further to champion any faith or faction. The Founders knew that the differences of sects could easily kill this new nation and wisely left them alone and without any built-in recourse to state authority to overpower each other. Some misguided souls want to take state power to impose their doctrine everywhere. We saw that once before in pre-Reformation Europe which begot the Inquisition; we're seeing it again in the mideast under the Wahabbi Muslims. We don't need that here."
4. Silver Fox wrote on January 10, 2008 11:38 AM:
"James O. Goldsborough: I am impressed by your article. It is one of the few written over the last year which seems to have what appears to be some excellent points to consider. However you stated... "Unlike Kennedy, Romney's Houston speech did not dispel doubts about his fidelity to the Constitution and to the presidential oath of office rather than to the tenants of his faith. Iowans saw the problem, so did voters in New Hampshire and so do the rest of us." Please don't speak for the rest of us. It is a monumental step to assume that you speak for the "rest of us"...members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or other American patriots. YOUR CONCLUSION IS DEAD WRONG !!! Kent Sibbett Salt Lake City"
5. JR wrote on January 10, 2008 11:43 AM:
"I suppose you can back up your claims about anti-Semitism, or are we just supposed to take your claims on faith? I prefer proof, if you have any; faith is for little kids who believe in Santa Claus among other unfortunates. And where did Taylor write anything anti-semitic? I read his stuff and recall nothing of that kind. Fill the board with your brilliance if you can."
6. Coast Watcher wrote on January 10, 2008 1:45 PM:
"Kudos for a terrific article touching a delicating subject. I am not Christian but still consider myself a very moral and faithful person. It scares me that some candidates feel they can impose their religious beliefs upon us all. Isn't that what they do in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran? I always like Jimmy Carter's approach: yes I am a Christian but I have no intention of imposing my religious beliefs upon the citizens while I am President. Let's not go back to jolly old England and all the religious oppression the Founders were trying to escape. Last time I checked there is no official religion in any of our government documents. Thanks again."
7. GoldyHatesBelieversandBush wrote on January 10, 2008 3:21 PM:
"What a stretch with this Christian-bating. Goldy takes several sentences, sentences not even from the same paragraph in a speech, and tries to put a negative spin on Hucky and Rommy because of their, gasp, belief in GoD! I saw Rommy's speech, and in it he was quite clear he wasn't running to be the Mormon leader of the nation (no, I'm not voting for him). That's why Goldy in fact can't even quote a complete sentence, just partial sentences. Its called taking things out of context. Oh, and lying, its called that too in some circles. And I had no idea "Modern Europe" was an athiest, non-secular state. I could've sworn there were a few Christians and Muslims over there."
8. josil wrote on January 10, 2008 5:01 PM:
"There is, especially among journalists and academics, fear of or antagonism toward religious belief. It seems to make them nervous. Rarely, in their panegyrics against public figures with expressed beliefs, do they mention the horrors brought about by non-believers; e.g., Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and assorted but equally nasty lessers. In addition, the secularists interpret the idea of religious tolerance, clearly stated in the constitution, as requiring the elimination of religious discourse from the public arena. From the same academics and journalists, this is much like their unwilliness to distinguish between immigrants whom enter the U.S.legally and those who sneak into the country."
9. JR wrote on January 10, 2008 5:56 PM:
"Josil: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot never invoked the wrath of God or His righteousness when they murdered their millions. Hitler, Franco, Philip II, Tilly the Warrior Monk and Pope Urban II did. And if you read the Constitution, and not the bumpersticker version put out by Opus Dei, you'd read that Congress shall make no law to effect a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of belief. What that has meant for 230 years is the Fed doesn't preach on behalf of the sect-of-the-month club, yours and mine included. As for Romney and the Huckster, pumping God for votes is some kinda blasphemy in my book; neither of those men have any standing in their Error either on relgious grounds and its a bastardization of ''christianity'' to equate one sect with another if one has a firm form of belief of one's own. Stick to politics, politician!"
10. D wrote on January 10, 2008 6:48 PM:
"Eggbeater is nearly always wrong, but in this case he is right. Keith Taylor, it is clear from his own essays, does not care for the Jews. JR, if the VofSD had archives with Taylor's pieces, you could reread them again and see Eggy is correct. I remember at least two of them had me wondering how in the world this hater had a column. Goldsboroughs garbage is still here, so you can read his anti-semitism for yourself. This current piece is so completely intellectually dishonest, drawing conclusions from imagined meanings to out of context utterings, blah blah blah, that I'll just leave it at that.Heck, I'll write G's next essay for him: "I hate you George Bush! Catholics and Mormons, and Jews, they're all bloodthirsty savages! Unless they're Democrats. Muslim fascists are misunderstood. I hate George Bush!!""
11. jdmb wrote on January 10, 2008 8:17 PM:
"I am impressed by those who see anti-Semitism in an article where Judaism and its followers are never even mentioned! And Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence explicitly declare that the state (the government, in other words) shall not sponsor or favor any one religion over another, nor religion over the people. Freedom of choice means we are each empowered to decide on our own what to believe and how to behave. Ethics should be the guiding principle, not religious morality."
12. LCb wrote on January 10, 2008 8:40 PM:
"I guess we'd ought to forget about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. then. And along with him, William Wilberforce, John Woolman - talk about religion being the enemy of freedom - because of them we lost the freedom to own slaves! What right did these folks have to impose their religious views on society?"
13. LCb wrote on January 10, 2008 8:40 PM:
"I guess we'd ought to forget about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. then. And along with him, William Wilberforce, John Woolman - talk about religion being the enemy of freedom - because of them we lost the freedom to own slaves! What right did these folks have to impose their religious views on society?"
14. LCb wrote on January 10, 2008 8:40 PM:
"I guess we'd ought to forget about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. then. And along with him, William Wilberforce, John Woolman - talk about religion being the enemy of freedom - because of them we lost the freedom to own slaves! What right did these folks have to impose their religious views on society?"
15. D wrote on January 10, 2008 9:40 PM:
"Jdmb, you're all over the board. G's anti-semitism is reflected in his writings as a whole, not this piece individually. Just cause a klansman writes an article about fishing, doesn't make him less of a klansman. The reference to Jefferson is spot on. Its just that G requires that you subscribe to the same thoughts and beliefs as him, less you be labeled a war-mongering, enslaving, money-worshipping Christian/Mormon/Jew G does not encourage freedom of choice. Read his piece(s) again, and maybe you'll get the picture."
16. Poppa wrote on January 10, 2008 10:43 PM:
"To quote Denholm Elliott in 'Trading Places' - 'religion is a fine thing...when taken in moderation.'""
17. LCb wrote on January 10, 2008 11:54 PM:
"I'm a McCain supporter, not a Romney supporter. But I believe Jefferson's unalienable Rights endowed by a Creator is what Romney meant by "freedom requires religion" (not any kind of state church). This is the basis of our civil rights, and it's derived from the Judeo-Christian belief that all people are created in the image of God. Toss that out and what do you replace it with? Social Darwinism?"
18. JR wrote on January 11, 2008 11:52 AM:
"LCb: Jefferson didn't require faith for freedom; it was implicit in his understanding that if a Creator existed, His images were created equally. That is a long stretch away from sanctioning any sect, any faith or any one belief system. As a matter of fact, it would allow Jefferson the luxury of choosing a belief system that would best support his idea, had he cared to do that. Jefferson read the Koran, abstracted his own Bible (the Jefferson Bible) and studied religion for its historical importance, but neither he nor the others who invented the US supported any church over another---ever. We shouldn't either if we want this country to stay united."
19. JR wrote on January 11, 2008 11:52 AM:
"LCb: How curious of you to revive King, Wilberforce and Woolman. All of whom faced bitter oppostition from their fellow clerics in their day for their views which were antithetical to their churches' safe positions. You might have well dug up Pius XII--who breathed not a word against Franco, Hitler or Mussolini, or even our own Cardinal Spellman, who saw commies under every bed, but didn't seem to notice the fascists murdering every Jew in Europe--among others. I'd urge you to re-think that line of argument, old son. The few clerics who ever stood for freedom are vastly outnumbered by the ones who prefer single-distilled slavery and intellectual deformity for the masses. Try again."
20. JDMB wrote on January 11, 2008 2:09 PM:
"I apologize to everybody for being, as D says in # 15 above, "all over the place" (I'm # 11). I have never met Mr. Goldsborough, and will not presume to know whether he is intolerant, etc. as he is so often accused of being here; but it seems to me the accusations of antisemitism started when he wrote the infamous op-ed that led to his departure from the U-T. In that article he stated that Jews would not vote en masse for Bush just because of his support for Israel - very inflammatory indeed. He has been critical of the government of Israel which is apparently enough to brand him as anti-semitic. As I personally am critical of my Church I guess that makes me anti-Catholic. But I digress. Apologies once more, D. It won't happen again."
21. Colin Jensen wrote on January 12, 2008 1:22 AM:
"It was absolutely bizarre how non-academic this post was... yes, it was fundamentally an unresearched rant, but the air of "yes, I did research it" was plain, and a lie. With lines like "Stegner, one of our finest Western writers, credits the Mutual Improvement Associations, the so-called Mormon Mutuals, whose job is to instill religious fervor in the young..." Stegner was a Creative Writing Professor who died 15 years ago and was raised as a boy in Utah. He hasn't been around Mormons en masse since the 1930s. To quote him as an authority is ridiculous, as can be seen by his comments, which may have held merit to some 80 years ago. He is describing organizations and mentalities which, without debating them too fully, simply ceased to be decades ago... And Goldsborough, "a writer for Newsweek", didn't do enough due diligence to notice."
22. LCb wrote on January 12, 2008 7:14 AM:
"Seems JR is more disappointed in Christians who remain in their safe "church" domain than when they emerge from it and speak (their religiously based) truth to power. Interesting - so the argument is turned on it's head. I agree with the institutional separation of church and state (but when the state starts to own everything that causes an issue); nevertheless religious folks can have an important voice in larger society - and sometimes they are right. As for Jefferson (a Deist), I didn't see the word "if" in his declaration..."
23. miguel de Portugal wrote on January 12, 2008 9:09 AM:
"Quoting "Someone Else": 1.Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's. [Matthew 22:21] 2. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another. [John 13:35] What else can I say?"
24. D wrote on January 12, 2008 11:26 AM:
"Alas, I never read Goldsborough in the U/T. I learned of his intolerance through his writings here on the VofSD only. This new knowledge of him being canned from the U/T for alleged anti-semitism validates my humble opinion."
25. JR wrote on January 12, 2008 11:44 AM:
"LCb: There is no disappointment; gutless 'christians' safe in their churches are the norm and we're all used to them by now. Those churches are made safe through history because their occupants are usually willing to carry out whatever obscenities Leadership demands--to the dereliction of their professed Faith. In Catholicism, they call it Cafeteria Catechism; the rest of us call it what it is: Cowardice. There should be churches full of Wilberforces, Kings, Woolmans and De Las Casas'; all we have in every generation are too many Elmer Gantrys, T.Faye Bakkers, Grahams, Huckabees and the rest of the charlatans instead. They belong in politics the way fertilizer belongs in a kitchen."
26. JAD wrote on January 26, 2008 1:54 AM:
"Goldsborough says, "Through most of our history, candidates have striven to leave religion out of politics." Nonsense. Through most of our history, the US was a solidly Christian nation, and it's politicians moved in lockstep with the voting base. Ergo, religion was not an issue--because it was a given. Diversity of religious viewpoints, and the proliferation of secularists firmly opposed to religion, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Therefore, it's hardly surprising that the discussion of religion plays a role in the electoral process. The nation will survive."
PRINT 
E-MAIL STORY
SHARE
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
NEWSVINE
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US
BLINKLIST
