“JFK’s speech was to reassure Americans that he wasn’t a religious fanatic. Mitt’s was to tell evangelical Christians, ‘I’m a religious fanatic just like you.’”
That harsh judgment came from Jon Krakauer, author of Under the Banner of Heaven, a best seller about the Mormons, when columnist Maureen Dowd asked him about Mitt Romney’s 12/6 speech on religion in America.
Some may find his assessment simplistic, even a caricature of what Romney said. After all, a few commentators thought that Romney actually elevated the debate about the role of religion in our country.
And several suggested that Mike Huckabee, gaining in Iowa by telling every camera “Faith doesn’t just influence me, it really defines me,” challenged Romney to say the same about his Mormon faith—which was calculated to make Romney look bad no matter how he replied.
On the first page of his speech, Romney sounded like he was offering an alternative to Huckabee. Romney’s comeback was, “I do not define my candidacy by my religion...
“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…
“As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution—and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.”
Like John F. Kennedy's words to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960, Romney’s seemed aimed at reassuring voters that he would never allow his church to tell him how to run the country.
He seemed to echo JFK: “I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office… I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”
As Romney’s speech went on, however, it became clear that he did not share Kennedy’s heartfelt belief “in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”
For although Romney agreed that churches should never impose teachings about their faith on the nation, he made a gaping exception for their teachings about morals. Indeed, Romney made the stunning assertion that “while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.”
To what extent this “common creed of moral convictions” actually exists is arguable. But insofar at it does, Romney has no problem imposing it on fellow citizens. He quotes John Adams’ opinion favorably: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”
When Romney says, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom,” he literally means that freedom requires government to impose at least the moral codes on which major religions agree. Citizens who deny this common creed or the government’s right to codify it in laws are dismissed as “the religion of secularism.” There is no room for the freedom from religion which the constitutional separation of church and state requires.
This is a far cry from JFK. When Kennedy said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” he meant absolute.
He explicitly cited a 1948 statement by the U.S. Bishops that strongly endorsed church-state separation—a statement issued less than a year after the courts officially adopted Thomas Jefferson’s model of a wall of separation between church and state as binding and normative.
Kennedy said, “I believe in an America…where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council or Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials…”
And among those church positions that government should never impose on the public he specifically included those on moral issues. He even made reference to birth control, divorce, censorship and gambling as explicit examples.
So Krakauer’s judgment appears not only warranted, but inescapable. Like the religious right that elected Bush and seems increasingly enamored of ordained Baptist minister Huckabee, Romney favors imposing religious moral values on those who disagree with them.
As president, he would see himself as the arbiter of our “common creed of moral convictions.” Those who disagreed would be dismissed as godless secularists—to whom the Constitution evidently gives no rights—even though some of the dissenters might be devout Episcopalians or liberal Catholics or followers of non-Christian world religions with millions of adherents.
In this light, it remains John F. Kennedy who elevated the discussion about religion in the United States. Mitt Romney did nothing to add to JFK’s insight, constitutional analysis, defense of religious tolerance and commitment to liberty in matters religious. In fact what Romney did was to detract from Kennedy’s achievement, by denying that the separation of church and state should protect us from the imposition of churches' moral views, including those of the religious right.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
The More Widely Government and Religion Are Separated, The Better It Is for Both
Two commentaries in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle charge that recent actions of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) on teaching evolution in the science curriculum violate the wall of separation between church and state—and suggest more to come.
The commentaries are significant, because they uphold the U.S. Constitution and current Texas education policy against attempts by a sizeable number of Texas Republicans to force conservative Christian religious doctrine on students in public schools.
The charges were leveled in a column by Rick Casey entitled “Why science needs history,” and in an editorial, “Bad science: Ouster of science curriculum chief suggests religious doctrine might be infecting education agency.”
Both take off from the case of Chris Castillo Comer, a veteran science teacher and for the last nine years TEA’s director of science curriculum.
Comer was suspended after she forwarded an email to some Austin contacts announcing a lecture by Barbara Forrest, professor of philosophy at Southeast Louisiana University and coauthor of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” which is critical of the intelligent design movement. The commentaries say Comer was then fired, or forced to resign.
TEA officials say that factors besides the email were involved in the termination, but no other grounds have been claimed.
What is certain is that less than two hours after Comer sent her email, Lizzette Reynolds—the TEA’s senior advisor on state initiatives for less than a year—fired off a memo calling for Comer’s termination. Reynolds said the State Board, the governor and legislators would not like the TEA supporting a criticism of intelligent design, and that recommending the lecture was “an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities.”
Reynolds’ prior positions reflect a strong dedication to conservative Republican positions: she was a legislative director for George W. Bush while he was governor of Texas, and then served in his U.S. Department of Education.
Casey asks: “So a science educator should be fired for promoting a lecture by a supporter of science? What kinds of ‘statewide initiatives’ does this senior advisor promote?”
The editorial adds: “Since Texas policy supports the inclusion of evolution in science curriculum, it’s hard to see how Comer was violating state policy by circulating an event notice sent out by a group that endorses teaching evolution.”
Both commentaries conclude that Comer lost her job because she agrees with Forrest’s position that any attempt to teach creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution is basically “to lie to students about evolution.”
Casey notes that “Promoters of creationism and intelligent design sometimes suggest that the biblical account deserves a special place in our schools (as opposed to, say, Hindu or Hopi creation stories) because the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.”
But he reminds us that the courts have consistently denied the authority of school boards to mandate teaching creationism, and that two years ago a federal judge in Pennsylvania, after listening to six weeks of expert testimony and legal arguments, ruled that intelligent design was nothing more than “creationism relabeled”—and that a local school board could not mandate teaching it.
The commentaries lament that Reynolds’ rationale and Comer’s subsequent termination make it appear that religious conservatives on the TEA and the State Board of Education want to head down the road outlawed in Pennsylvania.
Casey offers a lengthy, excellent analysis showing why the wall of separation is a practical necessity for U.S. democracy—and why injecting religion into the science curriculum is such a dismal, untenable idea.
He cites five examples, from 17th century Boston to 1869 in Cincinnati, of Christian groups trying use public agencies to force other Christian groups to follow disagreeable doctrines.
He argues that initially, at least, the doctrine of separation of church and state “was not a sop to Jews or Muslims or ACLU atheists. It was developed to keep some Christians from ruling the consciences of other Christians, just as for centuries they had attempted to do in Europe.”
I disagree with Casey that the doctrine is not found in the U.S. Constitution. As I noted in a post on 10/22/07, the First Amendment’s language about religion was distilled from Virginia’s “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” which Thomas Jefferson proposed as governor in 1779. It was Jefferson who coined the phrase “wall of separation.” It took him seven more years to get the Virginia legislature to pass the act, and three years after that for the language to be added to the Constitution. But Casey is correct in one respect, in that it was not until 1947 that the courts officially adopt Jefferson’s interpretation of religious freedom as binding and normative.
The point, which I have argued in several posts, is that the wall of separation between church and state is necessary to any democracy, not only to keep some Christians from lording it over other Christians, but to prevent any religious group from imposing its doctrines on others. That is why it is important not only for democracy in the United States, but also for civility between Jews and Palestinians and among various branches of Islam in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Casey recalls that in 1869 the issue in Cincinnati was which version of the Bible was best. The Cincinnati school board voted 22-15 to honor the request of Catholic parents to end the reading of the Protestant Bible in school. The Protestants sued, and a three-judge panel over-ruled the school board. But the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the school board’s decision, arguing in the strongest possible terms that the decision reaffirmed the necessity of separating church and state.
Casey finds the court’s wording persuasive and moving—and important for both church and state to ponder. So do I:
“When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine and not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.”
The commentaries are significant, because they uphold the U.S. Constitution and current Texas education policy against attempts by a sizeable number of Texas Republicans to force conservative Christian religious doctrine on students in public schools.
The charges were leveled in a column by Rick Casey entitled “Why science needs history,” and in an editorial, “Bad science: Ouster of science curriculum chief suggests religious doctrine might be infecting education agency.”
Both take off from the case of Chris Castillo Comer, a veteran science teacher and for the last nine years TEA’s director of science curriculum.
Comer was suspended after she forwarded an email to some Austin contacts announcing a lecture by Barbara Forrest, professor of philosophy at Southeast Louisiana University and coauthor of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” which is critical of the intelligent design movement. The commentaries say Comer was then fired, or forced to resign.
TEA officials say that factors besides the email were involved in the termination, but no other grounds have been claimed.
What is certain is that less than two hours after Comer sent her email, Lizzette Reynolds—the TEA’s senior advisor on state initiatives for less than a year—fired off a memo calling for Comer’s termination. Reynolds said the State Board, the governor and legislators would not like the TEA supporting a criticism of intelligent design, and that recommending the lecture was “an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities.”
Reynolds’ prior positions reflect a strong dedication to conservative Republican positions: she was a legislative director for George W. Bush while he was governor of Texas, and then served in his U.S. Department of Education.
Casey asks: “So a science educator should be fired for promoting a lecture by a supporter of science? What kinds of ‘statewide initiatives’ does this senior advisor promote?”
The editorial adds: “Since Texas policy supports the inclusion of evolution in science curriculum, it’s hard to see how Comer was violating state policy by circulating an event notice sent out by a group that endorses teaching evolution.”
Both commentaries conclude that Comer lost her job because she agrees with Forrest’s position that any attempt to teach creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution is basically “to lie to students about evolution.”
Casey notes that “Promoters of creationism and intelligent design sometimes suggest that the biblical account deserves a special place in our schools (as opposed to, say, Hindu or Hopi creation stories) because the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.”
But he reminds us that the courts have consistently denied the authority of school boards to mandate teaching creationism, and that two years ago a federal judge in Pennsylvania, after listening to six weeks of expert testimony and legal arguments, ruled that intelligent design was nothing more than “creationism relabeled”—and that a local school board could not mandate teaching it.
The commentaries lament that Reynolds’ rationale and Comer’s subsequent termination make it appear that religious conservatives on the TEA and the State Board of Education want to head down the road outlawed in Pennsylvania.
Casey offers a lengthy, excellent analysis showing why the wall of separation is a practical necessity for U.S. democracy—and why injecting religion into the science curriculum is such a dismal, untenable idea.
He cites five examples, from 17th century Boston to 1869 in Cincinnati, of Christian groups trying use public agencies to force other Christian groups to follow disagreeable doctrines.
He argues that initially, at least, the doctrine of separation of church and state “was not a sop to Jews or Muslims or ACLU atheists. It was developed to keep some Christians from ruling the consciences of other Christians, just as for centuries they had attempted to do in Europe.”
I disagree with Casey that the doctrine is not found in the U.S. Constitution. As I noted in a post on 10/22/07, the First Amendment’s language about religion was distilled from Virginia’s “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” which Thomas Jefferson proposed as governor in 1779. It was Jefferson who coined the phrase “wall of separation.” It took him seven more years to get the Virginia legislature to pass the act, and three years after that for the language to be added to the Constitution. But Casey is correct in one respect, in that it was not until 1947 that the courts officially adopt Jefferson’s interpretation of religious freedom as binding and normative.
The point, which I have argued in several posts, is that the wall of separation between church and state is necessary to any democracy, not only to keep some Christians from lording it over other Christians, but to prevent any religious group from imposing its doctrines on others. That is why it is important not only for democracy in the United States, but also for civility between Jews and Palestinians and among various branches of Islam in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Casey recalls that in 1869 the issue in Cincinnati was which version of the Bible was best. The Cincinnati school board voted 22-15 to honor the request of Catholic parents to end the reading of the Protestant Bible in school. The Protestants sued, and a three-judge panel over-ruled the school board. But the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the school board’s decision, arguing in the strongest possible terms that the decision reaffirmed the necessity of separating church and state.
Casey finds the court’s wording persuasive and moving—and important for both church and state to ponder. So do I:
“When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine and not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.”
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Spong: Purging Gays Would Decimate Catholic Clergy, Even Bishops and Cardinals
The 12/7 edition of the National Catholic Reporter has a letter from New Jersey reader Randy Kowalik praising its 11/2 editorial, which decried "the treatment of gay people in our church." But Kowalik says the editorial did not go far enough about the root cause of the mistreatment. Quoting a recent analysis, insightful and inciteful, by retired Episocpal Bishop John Shelby Spong, Kowalik suggests the most basic explanation is duplicity and dishonesty about the high percentage of Catholic clergy who are gay. The bulk of the letter follows.
Your editorial was one of the best statements I have read in years about the treatment of gay people within our church (NCR, Nov. 2). However, it still didn’t dare verbalize the root cause of the prejudice and spiritual tyranny: the actions of Pope Benedict XVI, both now and as the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
An eloquent analysis of the problem was given by retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong at a recent convention of Dignity. Quoting from Bishop Spong expresses the reality and truth that most of the Catholic media somehow fear stating. “When Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, one of his first acts was to announce his intention to purge gay males from the ranks of the Catholic priesthood. When the fine print was read, however, he limited himself to preventing aggressive or militant homosexual advocates from becoming priests. Even this pope knew full well that a purge of gay men from the ranks of the Catholic priesthood would decimate the clergy, to say nothing of culling significantly the members of the College of Cardinals, the archbishops and the bishops of that church. The duplicity and dishonesty surrounding this issue in the Catholic church is breathtaking.”
Has any member of the Catholic hierarchy had the courage to say this in public before? Did it take an Episcopal bishop to speak the truth?
Your editorial was one of the best statements I have read in years about the treatment of gay people within our church (NCR, Nov. 2). However, it still didn’t dare verbalize the root cause of the prejudice and spiritual tyranny: the actions of Pope Benedict XVI, both now and as the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
An eloquent analysis of the problem was given by retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong at a recent convention of Dignity. Quoting from Bishop Spong expresses the reality and truth that most of the Catholic media somehow fear stating. “When Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, one of his first acts was to announce his intention to purge gay males from the ranks of the Catholic priesthood. When the fine print was read, however, he limited himself to preventing aggressive or militant homosexual advocates from becoming priests. Even this pope knew full well that a purge of gay men from the ranks of the Catholic priesthood would decimate the clergy, to say nothing of culling significantly the members of the College of Cardinals, the archbishops and the bishops of that church. The duplicity and dishonesty surrounding this issue in the Catholic church is breathtaking.”
Has any member of the Catholic hierarchy had the courage to say this in public before? Did it take an Episcopal bishop to speak the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
