Romney’s speech revealed a limited view of pluralism
http://www.telegram.com/article/20071214/NEWS/712140337
Friday, December 14, 2007
AS I SEE IT
By David A. Niose
Picture
Enlarge photo
His views put him at odds with practitioners of ‘the religion of
secularism,’ such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who emphasized
secularism as a critical aspect of American government.
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney showed his flawed understanding of
American pluralism last week when he spoke out about religion. In a speech
designed to endear him to the far-right religious conservatives of the
Republican Party, Mr. Romney shamelessly played the religion card,
demonstrating a willingness to define religious freedom in a way that puts
conservative Christians on a higher plain than everyone else.
Mr. Romney paid quick lip service to those outside the Christian fold,
making brief references to Islam and Judaism, but clearly the speech was
designed not to show his broad tolerance of divergent views on religion,
but to assure conservative Christians that he would side with them on
questions of policy.
As such, he explained that as president he would defend the religious
right’s position on a host of social and cultural issues, such as defending
references to God on currency, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and in public
squares.
These views, of course, couldn’t be described as risky for a GOP candidate,
but Mr. Romney, ever the showman, presented himself as a man of unwavering
courage and conviction, putting his career on the line in the name of
principle.
One might wonder why Mr. Romney would even address hot-button cultural
issues in a speech that was promoted as his defining speech on religion, a
speech that presumably would demonstrate his understanding of the
importance of religious freedom and equality. It begins to make sense only
when we understand that the speech was not designed for such purposes at
all. To win the support of the religious right in America, a candidate’s
definition of religious equality must reflect the Orwellian notion that
some religious groups, especially the fundamentalist right, are more equal
than others.
As such Mr. Romney opportunistically assured GOP voters that his vision of
pluralism in America gives special status to conservative Christianity, and
to do so he openly attacked the one group most reviled by fundamentalists —
the secular community. In Mr. Romney’s view, those who oppose the religious
right’s decimation of the wall of separation between church and state are
practicing what he calls “the religion of secularism.” These opponents, Mr.
Romney assured his conservative audience, will have no weight in his
administration.
Mr. Romney’s views put him at odds with certain practitioners of “the
religion of secularism,” such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who
frequently emphasized secularism as a critical aspect of American
government. Mr. Romney also contradicts the message of John F. Kennedy, who
cited the importance of an “absolute” separation of church and state in his
own key speech on religion in 1960.
But Mr. Romney has little use for such libertarian rhetoric, because in
today’s America a candidate must downplay pluralism by ensuring the
religious right a special status in the formation of policy. In Mr.
Kennedy’s day, there was no organized, mobilized religious right dictating
public policy to the rest of America.
As such, Mr. Romney assured his audience that his definition of
church/state separation would be quite limited. “Freedom requires religion
just as religion requires freedom,” he proclaimed. The flaw in this logic
is obvious, for we know that religion can do quite well without freedom (as
we see in any theocracy, where there is little freedom but much religion)
and that freedom can do quite well without religion (as we see in Europe
and much of the developed world, where religiosity is very low but freedom
thrives).
But Mr. Romney’s fundamentalist audience eats up such sound bites, and
that’s all that matters. Cries of “Freedom requires religion!” will no
doubt be heard emanating from megachurches across the country as the
campaign season progresses. Of course, Mr. Romney’s views on religion and
politics don’t vary much from those of his opponents, because they all are
courting the same conservative Christian base. Such is the sad state of
pluralism, not to mention rational thinking, in today’s America.
David A. Niose is a lawyer in Fitchburg.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
