Religion & Politics rant - making new friends

[Harlan Huckleby]

'Judeo-Christian' is typically used to describe the religious foundation of our country.

you might just as well refer to the Hellenic foundations of our country. Western values descend from the ancient Greeks, after all.

the point is that the phrase "Judeo-Christian" is used by right-wing Christian groups who wish to emphasize a religious commonality. It sounds neutral and inclusive. But Jewish organizations have a history of minority status that resists this sort of centralized coercian. I've never heard a Jewish person use that phrase. Or a moderate Christian group.

Here's a point of view:
The Judeo-Christian Oxymoron

The next time I hear that phrase "Judeo-Christian" from someone who is not a right-winger will be the first time.

[the_idle_threat]

Mormons were persecuted in this country and still are misunderstood to a certain extent...just like Blacks and Jews and Muslims and Native Americans and Women...blah blah blah...I'm sick and tired of it being made a campaign issue.

When legit polls show that people won't vote for someone simply because of ethnicity, gender or religious background, its plainly an issue. It's not being "made" into anything. It is what it is.

I don't consider gender, ethnicity or religious background in deciding who I would vote for. I DO consider trustworthiness.

I distrust Mormons, and would be less inclined to vote for one, because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect. I think Mormons bring this so-called "persecution" on themselves.

One man's opinion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Crisis of Faith
Published: December 7, 2007

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.

Mr. Romney spoke with an evident passion about the hunger for religious freedom that defined the birth of the nation. He said several times that his faith informs his life, but he would not impose it on the Oval Office.

Still, there was no escaping the reality of the moment. Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy. He cited the Declaration of Independence’s reference to “the creator” endowing all men with unalienable rights and the founders’ proclaiming not just their belief in God, but their belief that God’s hand guided the American revolutionaries.

Mr. Romney dragged out the old chestnuts about “In God We Trust” on the nation’s currency, and the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance — conveniently omitting that those weren’t the founders’ handiwork, but were adopted in the 1950s at the height of McCarthyism. He managed to find a few quotes from John Adams to support his argument about America’s Christian foundation, but overlooked George Washington’s letter of reassurance to the Jews in Newport, R.I., that they would be full members of the new nation.

He didn’t mention Thomas Jefferson, who said he wanted to be remembered for writing the Declaration of Independence, founding the University of Virginia and drafting the first American law — a Virginia statute — guaranteeing religious freedom. In his book, “American Gospel,” Jon Meacham quotes James Madison as saying that law was “meant to comprehend, with the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”

The founders were indeed religious men, as Mr. Romney said. But they understood the difference between celebrating religious faith as a virtue, and imposing a particular doctrine, or even religion in general, on everyone. As Mr. Meacham put it, they knew that “many if not most believed, yet none must.”

The other myth permeating the debate over religion is that it is a dispute between those who believe religion has a place in public life and those who advocate, as Mr. Romney put it, “the elimination of religion from the public square.” That same nonsense is trotted out every time a court rules that the Ten Commandments may not be displayed in a government building.

We believe democracy cannot exist without separation of church and state, not that public displays of faith are anathema. We believe, as did the founding fathers, that no specific religion should be elevated above all others by the government.

The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific declarations of religious belief (like Mr. Romney saying he believes Jesus was the son of God) is a step toward imposing that belief on all Americans. That is why they wrote in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

And yet, religious testing has gained strength in the last few elections. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, has made it the cornerstone of his campaign. John McCain, another Republican who struggles to win over the religious right, calls America “a Christian nation.”

CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?”

The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.

[Scott Campbell]

Mormons were persecuted in this country and still are misunderstood to a certain extent...just like Blacks and Jews and Muslims and Native Americans and Women...blah blah blah...I'm sick and tired of it being made a campaign issue.

When legit polls show that people won't vote for someone simply because of ethnicity, gender or religious background, its plainly an issue. It's not being "made" into anything. It is what it is.

I don't consider gender, ethnicity or religious background in deciding who I would vote for. I DO consider trustworthiness.

I distrust Mormons, and would be less inclined to vote for one, because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect. I think Mormons bring this so-called "persecution" on themselves.

One man's opinion.

Well, at least you admit it.

Do you distrust Catholics because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect?

Mormon's are no longer persecuted in this country. But they certainly were. And if you don't think they were, then you probably just don't understand their history. They suffered a level of persecution that would not be tolerated today, though what they went through pales in comparison to the suffering of blacks and native Americans.

[the_idle_threat]

Well, at least you admit it.

Do you distrust Catholics because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect?

Well, I was raised Catholic, so they don't have any secrets from me. :P But seriously---this strikes me as a silly question. What Catholic "secrets" are you referring to? As far as I know, anybody is welcome in any Catholic church, and anyone can attend a Catholic ceremony, including a Catholic wedding (not that anybody would particularly WANT to ... *snore*). Non-Catholics are not supposed to participate in Communion, but they don't have to leave the room during the ceremony. Compare that to the Mormon Temple and Mormon weddings. I recall being told a story once about a Mormon marrying someone who was not Mormon, and the parents of either the bride or groom (I forget which) were left outside the temple, disallowed from attending the ceremony, because they were not Mormons.

Mormon's are no longer persecuted in this country. But they certainly were. And if you don't think they were, then you probably just don't understand their history. They suffered a level of persecution that would not be tolerated today, though what they went through pales in comparison to the suffering of blacks and native Americans.

I'm aware that Mormons experienced some persecution in the past. Along with just about everyone else in history. *Yawn* And you admitted yourself that it doesn't happen anymore. It's a dead issue. That's what I meant by "so-called." Not really a good choice of words on my part, though, I admit.

But I do think you're conflating present distrust in a Mormon leader---which, I think, is justifiable---with persecution---which is never justifiable. It's one thing to distrust somebody who wants to be the country's political leader, is religious or at least claims to be guided by his religous faith, but subscribes to a faith that most of the country doesn't understand and can't understand, because so much of the church's teachings go on behind closed doors. It's another thing entirely to advocate persecution. I'm in the former camp, but definitely not in the latter (no pun intended).

I will admit that I could be extremely misinformed on the Mormon religion. It's my understanding that it's kind of like a cross between Christianity and Freemasonry, with secret ceremonies and exclusive venues that are closed to outsiders---like is seen in Freemasonry---overlaying general Christian principals and teachings. It's that Freemasonry/secrecy angle that does not exist in Catholicism or any other major Christian sect that I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I do mean that, too. I'm more interested in gaining a better understanding than I am in being "right," if "right" I am not.

But if I am right in my understanding, then it's simple human nature to be at least a bit wary. Secret ceremonies and closed venues give the impression that there's something to hide. That might sound unfair, but it's a fact. It's hard to have complete trust in a would-be leader whose moral guidance comes from a faith that gives the impression of having something to hide.

[Freak Out]

The President is supposed to represent the people of the country and lead the nation in many respects.....but not in prayer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The President has always led the people in prayer. Go back and look at some of the great presidential speeches of all-time.

[MJZiggy]

Well, at least you admit it.

Do you distrust Catholics because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect?

Well, I was raised Catholic, so they don't have any secrets from me. :P But seriously---this strikes me as a silly question. What Catholic "secrets" are you referring to? As far as I know, anybody is welcome in any Catholic church, and anyone can attend a Catholic ceremony, including a Catholic wedding (not that anybody would particularly WANT to ... *snore*). Non-Catholics are not supposed to participate in Communion, but they don't have to leave the room during the ceremony. Compare that to the Mormon Temple and Mormon weddings. I recall being told a story once about a Mormon marrying someone who was not Mormon, and the parents of either the bride or groom (I forget which) were left outside the temple, disallowed from attending the ceremony, because they were not Mormons.

This part is true to a point. My brother married a Mormon woman and they eventually eloped because, yes, our side of the family would have been unable to attend the ceremony. But the reason we were given for our exclusion was more along the lines of that they wanted the wedding in a shrine and the Mormons consider the shrines to be holy places that only Mormon people should be admitted to.

I know that they have some strange beliefs (and underwear), and I don't trust Romney, but it has nothing to do with his denomination. I have no problem with his faith as long as he doesn't try to push it on me--just like I have no problem with Catholicism as long they don't try to push their guilt on me. That means YOU, Mom!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

The irony couldn't be any richer: Romney is standing up against the bigotry of evangelical (especially) Christians towards Mormons. And he does so by finding common cause in bigotry towards non-believers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The President has always led the people in prayer. Go back and look at some of the great presidential speeches of all-time.

Every politician is going to appeal to the majority. You don't see anybody in the WI Governor's family wearing Bears gear.

We have 537 people in Congress, and darned if not one of them is agnostic or atheist. Isn't that amazing! Quite a pious bunch.

Someday we'll have a politician with the courage to not wear religion on his sleave. None in sight yet.

[HarveyWallbangers]

There are a lot of us that don't mind having a "religious" politician... provided they live their life according to those principles. A lot of them aren't. I blame the politicians. Not the religion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There are a lot of us that don't mind having a "religious" politician.

Being religious is not a problem. The problem is the litmus test and the pandering.

[Joemailman]

Peggy Noonan, who was a Reagan speechwriter, wrote this article about the Romney speech, Like many Republicans, she is concerned that certain elements of the religious right have too firm a grip on the GOP.

PEGGY NOONAN

Mormon in America
How Mitt Romney came to give The Speech--and how he did.

Friday, December 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Did Mitt Romney have to give a speech on religion? Yes. When you're in a race so close you could lose due to one issue, your Mormonism, you must address the issue of your Mormonism. The only question was timing: now, in the primaries, or later, as the nominee? But could he get to the general without The Speech? Apparently he judged not. (Mr. Romney's campaign must have some interesting internal polling about Republicans on the ground in Iowa and elsewhere.)

But Mr. Romney had other needs, too. His candidacy needed a high-minded kick start. It needed an Act II. He's been around for a year, he's made his first impression, he needed to make it new again. He seized the opportunity to connect his candidacy to something larger and transcendent: the history of religious freedom in America. He made a virtue of necessity.

He had nothing to prove to me regarding his faith or his church, which apparently makes me your basic Catholic. Catholics are not his problem. His problem, a Romney aide told me, had more to do with a particular fundamentalist strain within evangelical Protestantism. Bill Buckley once said he'd rather be governed by the first thousand names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard faculty. I'd rather be governed by Donny and Marie than the Washington establishment. Mormons have been, in American history, hardworking, family-loving citizens whose civic impulses have tended toward the constructive. Good enough for me. He's running for president, not pastor. In any case his faith is one thing about Mr. Romney I haven't questioned.

It is true that some in his campaign thought a speech risky, but others saw it as an opportunity, and a first draft was ready last March. In certain ways Mr. Romney had felt a tugging resistance: I've been in public life--served as governor, run the Olympics, run a business. I have to do a speech saying my faith won't distort my leadership?

In May he decided to do it, but timing was everything. His campaign wanted to do it when he was on the ascendancy, not defensively but from a position of strength. In October they decided to do the speech around Thanksgiving. Mr. Romney gathered together all the material and began to work in earnest. Then they decided it would get lost in the holiday clutter. They decided to go after Thanksgiving, but before Dec. 15. The rise of Mike Huckabee, according to this telling, didn't force this decision but complicated it.

The campaign fixed on Dec. 6, at the College Station, Texas, library of George H.W. Bush, with the former president introducing him, which would lend a certain imprimatur (and mute those who say his son's White House is pulling for Rudy Giuliani).

It is called his JFK speech, but in many ways JFK had it easier than Mr. Romney does now. The Catholic Church was the single biggest Christian denomination in America, representing 30% of the population (Mormons: 2%, six million). Americans who had never met a Catholic in 1920 had by 1960 fought side by side with them in World War II and sat with them in college under the GI bill. JFK had always signaled that he held his faith lightly, not with furrow-browed earnestness. He had one great question to answer: Would he let the Vatican control him? As if. And although some would vote against him because he was Catholic, some would vote for him for the same reason, and they lived in the cities and suburbs of the industrial states.

Mr. Romney gave the speech Thursday morning. How did he do?

Very, very well. He made himself some history. The words he said will likely have a real and positive impact on his fortunes. The speech's main and immediate achievement is that foes of his faith will now have to defend their thinking, in public. But what can they say to counter his high-minded arguments? "Mormons have cooties"?

Romney reintroduced himself to a distracted country--Who is that handsome man saying those nice things?--while defending principles we all, actually, hold close, and hold high.

His text was warmly cool. It covered a lot of ground briskly, in less than 25 minutes. His approach was calm, logical, with an emphasis on clarity. It wasn't blowhardy, and it wasn't fancy. The only groaner was, "We do not insist on a single strain of religion--rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." It is a great tragedy that there is no replacement for that signal phrase of the 1980s, "Gag me with a spoon."

Beyond that, the speech was marked by the simplicity that accompanies intellectual confidence.

At the start, Mr. Romney was nervous and rushed, his voice less full than usual. He settled down during the second applause, halfway though the text--"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." From that moment he was himself.

He started with a full JFK: "I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith." No "authorities of my church" or any church, will "ever exert influence" on presidential decisions. "Their authority is theirs," within the province of the church, and it ends "where the affairs of the nation begin." "I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law." He pledged to serve "no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest." He will not disavow his religion. "My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

Bracingly: "Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it." Whatever our faith, the things we value--equality, obligation, commitment to liberty--unite us. In a passage his advisers debated over until the night before the speech, Mr. Romney declared: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind." He made the call. Why? I asked the aide. "Because it's what he thinks."

At the end, he told a story he had inserted just before Thanksgiving. During the dark days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, someone suggested the delegates pray. But there were objections: They all held different faiths. "Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed." At this point in Mr. Romney's speech, the roused audience stood and applauded, and the candidate looked moved.

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we've bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

[the_idle_threat]

There are a lot of us that don't mind having a "religious" politician... provided they live their life according to those principles. A lot of them aren't. I blame the politicians. Not the religion.

Normally I don't mind having a religious politician, as long as I understand their religion.

I blame the religion---at least a little bit---when I'm supposed to trust somebody who lives by the religion's priciples, but the religion hides those "principles" from anybody who isn't of the same faith. The public doesn't really know what it's getting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But Romney did not say that most Americans believe that religion is a gift from God. He seemed to suggest that it is a unanimous opinion of Americans. [/b]

And Guiliani does the full Bill O'Reilly when he defines a secular government as one dominated by the Secularist religion.

It's as if an absence of religion in government is an endorsement of irreligiousity.

I can see how religious people might feel this way. But the alternative boils-down to promotion of the mainstream religion (chrisitianity) by the government. Or at a minimum, a comingling of church and state.

On a related note: you can spot a Chrisitian Supremacist when you hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian values." This is a hoot. Jewish people and organizations are historically STRONGLY for seperation of church and state. You are unlikely to ever hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian" from a Jew. They typically want no part of any mainstream domination movement. That phrase is used constantly by Bill O'Reilly, who is unabashadly for defining us as a Christian nation. It is a ploy to sound more inclusive.

True. Very True. You'll never hear a Jew ever say Judeo Christian.

We all know that this country is Christian. And, if there is a choice between the Judeo (old testament) and Christian (new testament) we know which way things will fall.

Tyrone and his family know that diamonds are easily transportable.