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. Continue reading →

The Washington Post has a rather odd profile of Congressman Dennis Kucinich and his wife, Elizabeth. It’s essentially an account of how a 61 year old midwestern Congressman with political views considerably left of the American mainstream (and, yes, a history of spotting UFOs) got together with a 30 year old British woman who, in the reporter’s words, “looks like Botticelli’s Venus, only with clothes on.”

It’s a bit weird that people are paying all this attention to Elizabeth Kucinich’s looks, rather than her husband’s political views. The WaPo piece acknowledges the oddity of the hype (including the bit that ran on The Daily Show a few weeks ago), but in some ways this piece adds to it instead of moving past it.

The style of the writing does get on my nerves at times:

He says: It was an ordinary day in May 2005. There he was, Dennis Kucinich, congressman, twice divorced, looking for love, as always. He was on the floor of the House, doing ordinary congressman things.

“Tell her about the morning,” Elizabeth says helpfully.

“Ooh! That’s right!” Kucinich says. Here’s the amazing part. (Things involving Elizabeth generally tend to be amazing.) That very morning, believe it or not, guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who teaches peace through meditation and rhythmic breathing, had come to town. Dennis and Ravi have known each other for a long time. Ravi asked about Dennis’s love life. Dennis said he was still looking for that special someone.

“And his response was, ‘Stop looking and then she will appear,'” Dennis says. “And I said, ‘Okay, I’m going to stop looking.’ I said that. And that afternoon — “

“I walked through the office door,” Elizabeth finishes. (link)

On the one hand, this reads like political coverage as filtered through Danielle Steel (“looking for love… and doing ordinary congressman things” ?! Is this the same Washington Post E.J. Dionne writes for?).

On the other hand, if the Kuciniches really do say stuff like this in public, it’s a bit hard to truly feel sorry for them.

There’s more India a bit further on: Continue reading →