Saturday, December 8, 2007

Belief In the Separation of Church and State Ought to be a Litmus Test for the White House

It's happening again. The press and media gave Bush a pass for his intellectual one-downsmanship to Al Gore in 2000.

Now, it's cutting slack for two front-running Republicans contending for the 2008 nomination, Massachusetts Ex-Governor Mitt Romney and Arkansas ex-Governor Mike Huckabee.

In its treatment of both, the MSM is ignoring the issue as to whether acceptance of the separation of Church and State ought to be a requirement for the highest state in the land.

Tim Rutten says the Press Is Preying on the wrong Question, and has three of his own:

. . . . Start with the fact that nearly all this week's political coverage focused on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and the speech he gave in Texas on Thursday, asking voters not to reject his candidacy because he's a Mormon. Much of the media response to that address was built on superficial, mostly misleading comparisons to John F. Kennedy's landmark 1960 address before Protestant clergymen hostile to his Catholicism. What was missing was any discussion of the numerous and very legitimate questions that ought to be asked about religion and the candidacy of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose surging popularity in Iowa sent Romney to the podium in the first place.

Romney, after all, simply does what most religiously affiliated Americans do; he practices the faith into which he was born. Huckabee, by contrast, is a Baptist minister. Has the notion of distinct temporal and spiritual spheres -- each with its proper concerns and distinct competency -- really been so utterly obliterated that the political press simply shrugs at this?

1. Doesn't anybody think it's worth asking whether it's proper or even desirable for a clergyman to occupy the White House?

One of the suspicions Romney was forced to address was the notion that, as a Mormon chief executive, he would be compelled to accept direction from his church's leaders, even if it means acting in ways contrary to the nation's interest. In other words, some ancient Mormon elder in Salt Lake City is going to pick up the telephone and order President Romney to do something kooky. Huckabee, by contrast, already believes kooky things for religious reasons -- in things like creationism, which he thinks should be taught in the public schools.

2. Doesn't anybody thing it's worth asking whether a nation fighting to remain technologically competitive can afford a president who -- for religious reasons -- wants to encourage as many children as possible to join him in scientific illiteracy?

Then there's the issue of the Iowa campaign ads in which Huckabee declares he is "the Christian candidate." We're all sophisticated enough to understand that's a not-so-subtle way of saying that, as a Mormon, Romney isn't a Christian in the eyes of most evangelicals. However, neither are Catholics, Unitarians or Quakers, let alone Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Bahais or -- God help them -- the despised atheists. That's the thing about religious bigotry -- and the ad is nothing less -- once it is set loose, like the angel of death, it has a logic of its own.

3. Surely, somebody in the national campaign press corps must think this is an issue worth raising with the avuncular Arkansas pastor?

Obviously not, and that sort of institutional blindness to what is at stake in the current struggle over religion and politics made it all but inevitable that Romney's address Thursday would be misunderstood by much of the media. First of all, it was nothing like Kennedy's storied speech in setting, intention or content.
  • Kennedy was straightforward; Romney was clever.
  • Kennedy spoke to a hostile audience of Protestant clergymen and took their questions afterward; Romney spoke to a hand-picked crowd at a Republican presidential library and took no questions.
  • Kennedy defended -- indeed, insisted on -- separation of church and state; Romney simply asked that what is essentially a religious test for office be expanded to include his religion.
  • Kennedy and his advisors sought the advice of one of American-style religious liberty's foremost defenders -- the great Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray; Romney sought the counsel of political handlers skilled in stage managing the religious right.
Much of consequence flows from that difference. . . . Kennedy, who used the word Catholic 14 times in his speech, could tell the ministers:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. . . . If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
Kennedy pointed out that, as a member of Congress, he had opposed government aid to parochial schools or even the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican.


Romney, who used the word Mormon only once, told his audience:
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 is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism.
It was, beginning to end, an appeal to a single GOP constituency, the evangelical right, which now applies a religious test for office. Unlike Kennedy, Romney doesn't have any problem with such a test -- he just wants it graded on a steep enough curve to include Mormons.

Just as, when as a candidate, Bush displayed ignorance of the world around him and an impaired English speaking ability in 2000, so Huckaby and Romney display denial of one of the major working principles of the American democratic experiment. These ex-governors ought not be given a pass on the separation of church and state. It's a deal-breaker.


  1. Excellent post and point. I find it crazy that we're comparing Kennedy and Romney speeches. It's not hard to separate the wheat from chaff there. Iowa's going to be interesting.

  2. Well done, Emily.

    I like to add Robert Stein's suggestion in Connecting.the.Dots calling for a A Referendum on Church and State:

    Doesn't the Republican Party owe Americans a clear choice--a Huckabee-Romney or Romney-Huckabee ticket--that would, in effect, be a referendum on the separation of church and state?

    The alternative is to keep allowing the Religious Right to keep dominating the American conversation far out of proportion to be their true numbers and in contradiction to a consensus that existed in the nation's politics since 1776 until Islamic terrorists gave Bush's Christian absolutists a climate of fear in which to propagate their own extremism.

    I say "Amen" to that.

  3. My belief is that it's not 9-11 that led to the strong political influence of extreme has been growing since the 80s when my brother started keeping a file on Jerry Falwell's influence on politics. The Republican Party realized with Reagan and especially Bush I (they used George II to preach to the right) that there were ENOUGH religious extremists to work HARD and get out the vote for them. They are not the majority, but they are a strong, vocal plurality of the Republican party. I actually think their influence is declining, 1st Amendment conservatives are pushing back, and I think Romney and Huckabee might be able to win in conservative states, and possibly even the nomination. But not because they are theocrats, the awful thing is, the rest of the GOP field are obviously nuts, too, so it's hard for any rightwinger to choose one. This all helps McCain.

  4. We allready have a pResident who takes his orders directly from God. Look where that got us.

    The thing that kills me is, the GOP have been running on the anti-abortion treadmill for as long as I can remember (with no results)and the fundies still vote for them on just that issue.

    This used to be a burning issue with me, but now I believe the corporation runs the country and we could put Fred Phelps in the oval office and he would be just as owned as anyone else.

    Except Kucinich that is.

  5. The very idea of a separation of church and state should a Republican be elected is beyond the pale. I submit they are panderers all, who care nothing about Jesus, or his gang of fools. The fact is the Repugnants have found hope in the Bangers of the Bible. If they can stay with Jesus they think they might win. Sadly, they just might. God rules in America today; common sense ruled yesterday.

  6. I'm associating myself with Mad Mick on this one. Look what happened this weekend in the heartland of Christofascism - Colorado Springs. Organized religion is the font of evil.

  7. I grew up in a conservative town, with a liberal minister for a father. He survived as a lone voice in the example of Christ as a peacemaker and healer. Since that time, I have seen the influence of the Christian right peak and finally be countered by the growing influence of liberal theological thought and influence in our country (thankfully). When we attack faith, we attack both sides of the debate. Evil is promulgated by hypocrites and those who believe in a militant God (and who are waiting for that God to kill "non-believers" which would include me). So I don't think these nuts aren't a threat; I just happen to think that the faithful LEFT have a healthier sense of holiness that can COMBAT and COMPETE against the militant right; so we ought to give some religious people a break when we start slamming organized religion--some of those organizations are on our team.

  8. Boris, I am proud to align my self with Pinks. I am a currently un-churched United Church of Christ-Congregational or Unitarian/Universalist. (Just can't make up my mind in my new surroundings here, in Paradise-on-Earth.)

    Besides, Boris, you are poking my city-of-birth in its eye with a stick. I should take umbrage. (But I won't because it fully deserves it.)

  9. I'm an atheist and have a hard time with all of this.

    I wish the candidates would stop sucking up to the people who believe in a deity.

    Government should not be in the business of validating one religion or another, or creating policy based on what religious people want.

    Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is a racist, misogynistic religion. Why he wants to be associated with it is beyond me. Probably too chicken to dump them, or too stupid.