Last week several commenters criticized my post on Mitt Romney’s “Muslims in the cabinet” comments. Romney’s apparent gaffe quickly faded from the headlines, but Romney’s recent speech on his idea of the role of religion in politics might be a good opportunity to briefly revisit my earlier post, and take a look at some issues with Romney’s attitude to religion in politics that come from directly from Romney’s statements “on the record.”
First, on the previous post. In hindsight, I regret not taking seriously the people other than Mansoor Ijaz who say they heard Romney say he would rule out people of Muslim faith from his cabinet. At the time I wrote the post, there were two witnesses saying that; by the following day there were three. All three individuals work for one libertarian magazine based in Nevada, which does pose a concern (that is to say, it’s possible they’re part of a right-wing anti-Romney movement).
That said, four witnesses (including Mansoor Ijaz, who in my view is not very credible) is enough: Romney probably did say (at least once, possibly twice) “Not likely” when asked whether he would have Muslims in his presumptive cabinet. The biggest problem with that statement, of course, is that it’s discriminatory. And those of us who aren’t Muslims should be equally concerned: if he’s not having any Muslims in his cabinet, he’s probably not having any Hindus or Sikhs or Jains either.
Another unfortunate aspect of Romney’s statement is that it reveals his seeming lack of awareness of people from a Muslim background who might in fact be qualified for certain cabinet posts. One such person is the Afghan-American Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been serving as the U.S. Ambassador to the UN — one of the few high-level Bush political appointments that hasn’t been a total flop.
In the end, I do not think the Romney “Muslims” gaffe is a significant political event, partly because it seems no one caught it on video, which means Romney has “plausible deniability” (damn you, deniability!). Pressed on the question by the media, Romney finesses it, and argues that what he meant was that he wouldn’t have Muslims in his cabinet just to placate critics of America in the Muslim world. That explanation works just fine with the mainstream media.
Still, Romney’s recent speech on religion probably isn’t going to win him many Muslim friends:
“I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings. (link)
Muslims have “Frequent prayers” — that’s the best he could come up with? Oy, vey. (I think Jews might also be a bit troubled that his praise of Judaism is for its ancientness, a quality which has sometimes been invoked by anti-Semites. It’s also untrue that the religion is unchanged; ever hear of Reform or Conservative Judaism? But I digress.)
Of course, what’s really wrong with Romney’s speech, beyond that absurd paragraph, is the way he completely flip flops on secularism. At the beginning of the speech Romney says:
“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, 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.
“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin. (link)
But by the end he says:
“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. (link)
He’s perilously close to a direct contradiction in these two statements, and is only saved by a slight distinction between the idea of “politics” (where he says religion does not play a direct role) and the idea of the “public square” (where he says it should).
(Romney also conveniently overlooks the fact that “Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance — which, it should be mentioned, was not written by the “founders”! — fairly recently.)
To continue:
“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.’
“Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
“They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united. (link)
Romney wants to have it both ways: he wants to be respected by the main stream of American voters despite his belonging to a small religious minority. But he also wants to insist on the importance of keeping God in the political picture, and seemingly fudges over the fact that his concept of “God” is surely not the same as a Catholic’s, or a Jew’s, or a Buddhist’s. (And he doesn’t give a thought for what all this means to those Americans who do not believe in God at all.) The rhetoric is slippery: at the very moment when it seems he’s going overboard with religion, he turns around, and describes American values in secular terms (“equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty”).
In short: on religion, Romney is like a wet seal on icy pavement. (He reminds one, more than a little, of John Kerry.)
In a democracy, people as a whole get the Govt they deserve. Thus if Romney does get elected, too bad but he would only reflect what Americans want. People here may not vote for him but what are we going to do about the big mass of miseducation – the south and a lot of the midwest. To think of it though, a lot of desis are actually republican.
He might as well said.
I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages,and the tasty falafel sandwhiches that Muslims eat.
I get a sick feeling in my stomach that this guy is going to be the next President and is going to make Bush look like a great President.
hehe. as usual “religion” seems to only apply to the abrahamic tradition. or he hasn’t encountered anyone not from these systems or the others are considered too out there (weird, because mormonism is considered weird by some christians). but sometimes i think the fact that hinduism, buddhism, sikhism, jainism, rastafarianism etc. are rarely included in the “religious bonhomie” speeches of america is actually a good thing.
wasn’t that impressed with romney during the recent debate. he seemed opportunistic and his explanations for flip-flopping weren’t convincing. but then again, the whole debate seemed to be a competition to see who was the most god-and-gun-ho of the lot.
The anti-Muslim tone is shocking, but it also shouldn’t be unexpected on the Republican side of the aisle, especially for someone who already runs the risk of looking religiously “impure”. I honestly think the fairly explicit recognition that Romney would basically practice old school “how many votes does this group buy me” politics is even more shocking. That admission has implications far beyond Islam, or even Desis as a whole, as it implies that the only people welcome in a Romney cabinet would be those who represent politically important constituencies, regardless of any actual merit. So maybe, MAYBE there would be a black guy in there somewhere for “optics”‘ sake, but we’d likely see more of the same stupid cronyism that has made the Bush Administration such a Hindenberg-style catastrophe of shitty governance.
“The anti-Muslim tone is shocking, but it also shouldn’t be unexpected on the Republican side of the aisle”
but is it really only the republicans? didn’t one of clinton’s volunteers send out a release about obama being a muslim who was seeking to destroy america? her campaign distanced themselves from it, but it’s not as if people who call themselves democrats are above this sort of thing.
Just to emphasize, the initial Romney quote in question was:
“…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”
The patronage-style logic implied there is pretty clear.
Whose God:
You’re right, but whereas embracing Islam might be politically risky among Democrats, it’s a death wish among the heavily religious electorate in the Republican primaries. The Clinton staffer’s attack was effectively an attack on Obama’s electability, his ability to appeal to swing voters and cultural conservatives, not necessarily on Islam as a whole. A similar attack from explicitly conservative candidates would not shie away from attacking the faith itself.
But with word of Giuliani and Huckabee co-operating to get a shot a Romney, he still has a long way to go.
I think it’s illuminating to compare Romney’s speech with that delivered by Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, especially since Romney has no qualms about mentioning it and attempting to draw a parallel between himself and Kennedy.
Here’s Romney:
And here’s Kennedy:
Personally, I find Kennedy’s speech, delivered under similar circumstances (people questioning the influence his faith could play were he to be elected president), much more reassuring, with the emphasis on the absolute separation of church and state and being devoid of Romney’s squirming tendency to try to placate all sides.
I must also say that I find some of the “coded” messages (underscored above) in Romney’s speech disturbing; they appear to be a sign to fundamentalists that, if elected, he will nominate judges opposed to the separation of church and state, and that he is willing to use public funds for supporting religious motifs.
Finally, I find it interesting how Romney’s America, as outlined in his speech, seems to have no atheists, agnostics, or members of any faith other than the Abrahamic ones.
Hillary, Obama & Co. had best not fuck this up. That Republican field is scary… with not one but several candidates so disturbing on a bone-deep level that at their appearances you half expect to see Christopher Walken in the balcony with a sniper rifle, trying to save the world…
there is no absolute separation of church and state in America, as the phrase appears no where in the 1st amendment, nor in the constitution for that matter. in fact, a separation, as viewed by Kennedy, would violate the free-expression clause, which has long been held to be value-neutral, though some precedents have chipped away at this in the name of a non-existent separation.
the phrase as used by Jefferson and Madison goes back to Locke, and should be seen in the context of classic liberalism, which advocated a general separation between the state and various private affairs, including the economic for example. the entire bill of rights encodes a separation, limiting the activities the govt can get involved in.
but if the government gets involved in an activity, they should not be allowed to viewpoint-discriminate. church busses should be allowed to use public roads; church groups public schools, or religious artists public funding if secular groups/artists have similar access.
there is no absolute separation of church and state in America, as the phrase appears no where in the 1st amendment, nor in the constitution for that matter.
You only believe in those constitutional rights which are explicitly spelled out in the constitution?
Re: Frequency of prayers.
I did not see any patronization. Most Muslims are very proud of the number of times they have mandatory prayers as compared to people in other religions and they would presumably take this as a compliment.
this strikes me as romney’s personal pledge, as opposed to his interpretation of constitutional requirements. he’s reassuring Americans, like Kennedy did, that he won’t let his wacky church interfere with matters of state. that is his choice. but such non-interference is not constitutionally mandated, as the founders allowed rulers to be informed by religious sentiment…witness bush with the evangelicals, Reagan with the pope vis a vis defeating communism, or Kennedy and Johnson w/ MLK in order to defeat jim crow.
this however:
…is clearly a constitutional requirement. and he is more or less correct, except for perhaps the “under god” part which is meaningless. Kennedy made the mistake of trying ot legislate his own morality (absolute separation), and ironically sowed the seeds for continual violation of the free-expression clause.
Romney is more or less correct…the founders, and the enlightenment liberals, wanted the state out of religion, but not religion out of the state.
You only believe in those constitutional rights which are explicitly spelled out in the constitution?
no, i believe the constitution allows for unenumerated rights, like the right to property, but it does not mandate a separation of state and economics…to argue by analogy.
what i meant ot say in 14, amardeep, is that i don’t think there is a contradiction between the two statements, b/c one is a statement on policy, the other is an interpretation of the first amendment.
so its kind of like obama coming out to say he won’t be dictated by oprah.
I don’t think Romney’s intent was to point a finger at any other religion or anyone else’s ability to keep their leadership skills separate from their religious beliefs. Rather, he was trying to get the finger turned AWAY from him about people accusing him that because he was Mormon he might skew the lines between religion and public office. However, I don’t think it matters what denomination you are. Who really cares? Look at their records and what they stand for, not what particular denomination they are. Just be happy he is Christian and has values. The denomination and its history shouldn’t be of any importance.
Shaun:
Your comment has been edited. Please don’t include “Check out my blog at ___”. If people want to check out your blog, they know that they can use your hyper-linked handle to do so.
As for your “Just be happy he is Christian…”, it’s borderline inappropriate and intolerant, but I’ll let the commenters have at that.
Most Muslims are very proud of the number of times they have mandatory prayers as compared to people in other religions and they would presumably take this as a compliment.
yeah. i think it is really stretching it to be offended by that, i’ve heard that there are stories that muslims pray 5 times to “two up” the zoroastrians who pray 3 times.
in any case, romney’s problem is that he’s religiously heterodox but aiming for an audience which values orthodoxy (orthodoxy judged by adherence to the “great tradition” which accepts everything up the council of nicea, which the mormons reject). romney believers that god has a physical body and lives in the pleides constellation and has a wife as well, that all humans are his children, that jesus and satan are literal brothers and that jesus is our eldest sibling, that there are a multiplicity of gods, that god was once a mortal and that godly mormon males will become gods of their own universes in turn (that is, they’ll turn into heavenly fathers). he has a fine line he is trying to balance. good effort, but it won’t work.
Interesting discussion, but I wouldn’t expend too much energy analyzing something Romney said. He seems like the kind of guy who will say anything to be elected. His true views are probably somewhere in the middle of that muddle of flip flopping between his hardcore republican base and the more secular crowd.
oh, and romney is 1000X better than george w. bush. he’s smart (he makes no bones of the fact that he accepts evolution and rejects creationism). also, re: religion, remember that george w. bush thinks that those who haven’t accepted christ are doomed to hell (see his conversation on this topic with his mother). romney doesn’t believe in hell, mormons have 3 levels of heaven and almost all non-believers will have a better afterlife than this life (though only godly mormon males get to turn into literal gods). so if you get all offended by people’s primitive superstitions (a surprising number of atheists seem to be offended by the nature of someone else’s delusions even if it has no material impact upon others), mormonism is actually pretty universalist (one mormon theologian has stated that the religion is a combination of liberal theology & conservative morality).
no, i believe the constitution allows for unenumerated rights, like the right to property, but it does not mandate a separation of state and economics…to argue by analogy.
Manju: I see where you are going with the analogy. Economics is not a good analogy per se because they are numerous references in the constitution which both enable and disable various branches of the government on the economy but I understand what you are saying. I guess going by your logic, you might say that the constitution does not mandate a seperation of state and superstitious policy making because the constitution does not address superstition.
However, we do have something about the state and the church, aka the disabling establishment clause. If you believe in the original reading/intent of the establishment clause do you also believe that for example free speech can in fact be restricted by the City government or City Community College because the Anti-Federalists like Jefferson surely did not have the City in mind when they put restrictions on the ability of Congress to restrict speech. Also lets remember the Anti-Sedition Act of 1789 where Congress itself restricted speech and even Jefferson did not have a problem with that on First Amendment grounds.
My point is that all of us have become accustomed to a reading of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court over the last few decades or in cases like Marbury v. Madison for almost two centuries. Lets remember that before 1919, the US Supreme Court had not really considered restrictions on free speech by the Federal Government in any case. However, I dont see people railing against the modern understanding of free speech. Maybe you do, but most right wingers are very selective on where they want to see original intent/purpose/words and where they want to ignore it.
razib,
aren’t we getting carried away with the relative value comparisons to Georgie? Now that his particular circus is seen to be leaving town, can we not make devise a method of describing Romney’s absolute value? I actually take comfort in the fact that he’s a consummate politician and is willing to make the cosmetic changes (Gays are bad! So’s abortion! Let’s not talk about evolution specifically, but traditional values are the bomb!) to get elected. GW fancied himself a decisive, perhaps ruthless (in Norman Podhoretz’s wet dreams), decider but proved to be more of a inept bungler than anything else. I just hope that Romney will also make the right staffing/appointment choices, if elected, to carry out workable policy rather than the political alchemy being attempted by our current prez overseas.
what poll/survey/study did you get this from? I thought the atheist’s main dilemma with any believing candidate, outside of those belonging to mainline congregations, was how far a candidate would use political appointees and the influence of the executive branch to advance the more illiberal mandates of their particular theology.
the secularism of the writers of the constitution was itself a discriminatory act, a way to keep the ignorant religious hordes of the great awakening out of the political sphere — the fact that said hordes made up the majority of the country’s citizens was irrelevant and steps were taken to keep them from voting or having their views represented (property requirements, etc)
Somehow from original post and others, it becomes an assumption that JFK’s catholicism didn’t affect his politics, which is dead wrong. It was his catholicism that guided his policy in Ireland and arguably Cuba and the communist bloc, and it was his role as the US president that did have an effect on the work of the second vatican council, particularly the Church decision that jews aren’t culpable for death of christ.
Further errors in Romney speech are that “In God We Trust” and “Under God” have been around for a long time when both the phrase on the money and the phrase in the pledge to flag came about only in 1950s.
“But he also wants to insist on the importance of keeping God in the political picture, and seemingly fudges over the fact that his concept of “God†is surely not the same as a Catholic’s, or a Jew’s, or a Buddhist’s.”
Presidents can be religious and they can and should be able to openly express their faith and reliance on their god without consideration for what their fellows think of god. His concept of god very well could be similar to a jew’s concept and different from a fellow mormon’s, either in his profession or in his own conscience.
It would seeem that the demand being set forth is for an athiest or at least for one who will stay quiet about what very well might be a major force that helps him think and act. It was finally very much Lincoln’s own growing religious reckoning (he never mentioned god in 1860 or in his first inaugural speech) that made him act properly and decisively in the civil war and such is reflceted in the unabashed religiosity of his second inaugural speech, the best ever given by a president:
…The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
AcFD:
Although i think original intent has to be considered, i’m not really a strict constructionist, for many reasons including the fact that the founders themselves, jefferson and madison for example, had contradicory intentions. but i do think the document can and should be understood w/i the philosophical context it was written: classic liberalism, and when seen thru this lens a clear picture emerges, though some vagueness remains.
but i do think “separation of church and state” has been dangerously decontextualized, as if it exists in a vacuum as opposed to part of the general separation, or limited govt, that such thinkers as locke and hobbes advocated. in fact, one could argue the whole idea of enumerated federal powers (of defense, foreign policy, and interstate commerce) w/i the constitution represents a separation state and (fill in the blank). but to single out religion for separation while expanding government’s role into such areas as art, farm support, and retirement benefits strikes me as a contradiction.
but it is true that the establishment clause singles out religion in ways it does not other institutions. but even then, the primary purpose of the 1st amendment is to preserve freedom (of religion, speech, assembly, press, and petitioning govt) and the establishment clause should be understood w/i that context. thus the government cannot require its citizens to wear a burka, b/c that would impinge on their religious freedoms, thus constituting an establishment of religion.
more debatable is whether the govt could require citizens to wear a tuxedo. now i would argue such a law would be prevented by the 9th amendment but clearly the founders singled our religion b/c they knew, for all practical purposes, that religion posed a unique threat to liberalism. but that doesnt change fact that they wanted to separate all sorts of activities from government.
however, to interpret the establishment clause as a ban on saying “merry christmas” in govt offices, preventing church groups from using public schools, or citizens from using vouchers to attend religious schools, goes against the entire purpose of the 1st amendment. i’m also concerned about civil rights laws restricting religious freedom when it comes to the boy scouts banning gays, catholic groups like the st patty’s day parade doing the same, and recently foreign hate speech and libel laws making their way into the American system.
sadly, i think the republicans are better defenders of the first amendment that democrats, though I’m with the dems on flag burning.
I just hope that Romney will also make the right staffing/appointment choices, if elected, to carry out workable policy rather than the political alchemy being attempted by our current prez overseas.
he’ll probably draw from baen people. whether that is good for bad depends on what you think of consultancies.
what poll/survey/study did you get this from?
from talking to atheists who are stupidly offended that some people think they are going to hell. i’ve been involved in ‘atheist groups,’ and i can tell you this is a surprisingly common emotional objection.
NobleKinsman…here’s a quote from Lincoln: “The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
People often get confused when they read quotes by Jefferson, Lincoln and co. Indeed religious people often mention the Declaration, where we are “endowed by our creator,” as evidence that Christianity was the foundation of this country. This could not be further from the truth. In numerous writings of Jefferson it is clear that while he does believe in some sort of supernatural intelligence, he is certainly not religious and certainly not Christian. He was a Diest, which was fairly common amongst upper-class liberals of his day. In fact had he been alive today it is very doubtful whether his famously conflicted rational mind would believe in any sort of god at all. He is clear that he only believes in God because he ‘has no other explanation’ for how the incredibly intricate world that confronted him, came into being. Now he would have just the sort of explanation, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, that would permit him to abandon the shell of ‘faith’ that he did have.
jefferson’s deism was a belief held by an elite minority and imposed upon the majority of the country who were in the midst of a very deep religious time. Neither he, nor any of those founding writers held any pretenses towards believing in a crude democracy, nor do they say they do. They believe that enlightened and propertied men will govern the masses. So the secularism embedded in the founding documents is not nor ever has been democratic. If you want to insist upon secularism, you may well be doing so against the will of the people.
Lincoln’s sect is irrelevant. What is relevant is that when he finally overcomes ambivalence towards the war and its cause and sees that fighting the war is actually more important than preserving the union, that the war may be fought, as he says, “until every drop of blood drawn the lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword,” his basis is religious, perhaps irrational, but ultimately right.
Noblekinsman (28):
Gosh, that would suck. I mean, as opposed to the opposite, which never ever happens, right? Religion is hardly ever forced down the throats of those who believe differently.
For the odd “constructionist” / Founding-Fathers-Said-So/No-They-Didn’t debate, I add the following, taken from the Southeast wall of the Jefferson Memorial:
That, I think, is truly telling.
And you, most of the quotes in that memorial that use the word “God” so frequently are actually cobbled together from many sources. The previous one appears in its entirety here, in a letter Jefferson wrote to Samuel Kercheval. You can only know context if you actually refer to it, so read and then judge for yourself the man’s opinions.
Oops, omit “And you” from the previous.
And by the way, Noblekinsman, I have no idea where you got the following: …Neither he, nor any of those founding writers held any pretenses towards believing in a crude [emphasis mine] democracy, nor do they say they do. They believe that enlightened and propertied men will govern the masses. So the secularism embedded in the founding documents is not nor ever has been democratic. If you want to insist upon secularism, you may well be doing so against the will of the people.
(By the way, what’s a crude democracy? Does it have anything to do with Exxon-Mobil?)
I cannot find anything that supports your claim that Jefferson was anti-democracy (or, perhaps more accurately, anti-republic). On the other hand, I can probably find about 100 quotes right away that would demonstrate that Jefferson did believe most firmly in representative democracy. But I don’t need to go looking. I can find it in that same letter to Kercheval: