Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Romney: Some Beliefs are More Equal than Others

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment. Posted December 9, 2007.


Romney's "landmark" speech didn't follow in Kennedy's footsteps -- it was the antithesis of JFK's call for religious tolerance.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Mitt Romney's speech in Texas on Thursday was supposed to be an attempt to fend off religious bigotry. Instead, it betrays some prejudices of its own (against secular people), and seems to provoke others to bigotted statements. It has been likened to the speech of John F. Kennedy on his Catholicism. But we knew John F. Kennedy, and Mitt Romney is no John F. Kennedy. Kennedy strongly affirmed the separation of religion and state. Romney wants to dragoon us into a soft theocracy (not as a Mormon but as a Republican allied to the Pat Robertsons of the world). Kennedy wanted to be accepted as an American by other Americans. Romney wants to be accepted as a conservative Christian by other conservative Christians.

This conundrum is the price the Republican Party is paying for pandering to the religious Right. Can a secular person even win the Republican nomination any more? If you make yourself captive of the Protestant Right, then you will discover that they believe Mormons are heretics. The Republican Party has established its own litmus test, and since it has been a dominant party in recent years, we've all been affected by it. Romney's plight in finding it hard to be accepted by that constituency mirrors the plight of secular and unchurched Americans, on whom the very people Romney is sucking up to want to impose their narrow and sectarian values.

The unsavory aspects of this entire discourse are apparent in the op-ed of Naomi Schaeffer Riley for the Wall Street Journal. While she depicts Mormons in a positive light, she displays the most gut-wrenching bigotry toward Muslims. She writes:

A recent Pew poll shows that only 53% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mormons. That's roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics. Whatever the validity of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?

I just wanted literally to puke on my living room carpet when I read this bilge. Islam is not'the faith professed by 9/11 hijackers.' Islam is the religion of probably 1.3 billion persons, a fifth of humankind, which will probably be a third of humankind by 2050. Islam existed for 1400 years before the 9/11 hijackers, and will exist for a very long time after them. Riley has engaged in the most visceral sort of smear, associating all Muslims with the tiny, extremist al-Qaeda cult.

We could play this game with any human group. Some Catholics were responsible for the Inquisition. Shall we blame Catholicism for that, or all Catholics? Of course not. Jewish Zionists expelled hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians from their homes in 1948. Is that Judaism's fault or that of Jews in general? Of course not.

She goes on to further stick her foot in her mouth by complaining that she heard conservative Christians call Mormonism'the fourth Abrahamic religion' (alongside Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and complains that they compared a Muslim belief she considers'wacky' to Mormon stories. It is all right for her to call folk Islamic motifs wacky, mind you. She's only interested in being fair to Mormons, not to Muslims. Mormons are good people, but some of their forebears were also involved in violence in the 19th century of a sort that other Americans viewed as terrorism.

Riley's remarks exemplify the problems with Romney's speech, which demands fairness for his group but not for, e.g., secularists.

Thus, he says:

In John Adams' words: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ...Our Constitution," he said, "was made for a moral and religious people." Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

What Romney omits is that many of the "religious people" among the founding fathers were Deists, who did not believe in revelation or miracles or divine intervention in human affairs. Thomas Jefferson used to sit in the White House in the evening with scissors and cut the miracle stories out of the Gospels so as to end up with a reasoned story about Jesus of Nazareth, befitting the Enlightenment.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: religion, election08, romney

Juan Cole is a professor of history at the University of Michigan and maintains the popular blog Informed Comment.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The "religion of secularism"???
Posted by: l_m_n on Dec 9, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't that straight out of Coulter's book, The Church of Liberalism?

What a nice way to appeal to the far-right, while appearing to be reasonable.

Also nice to note the wonderfully credible direction the Wall Street Journal has taken lately. Wouldn't have anything to do with the Murdoch buyout, would it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sweden is superior on socialism, not democracy
Posted by: tjohoo on Dec 9, 2007 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Sweden families with preschool children are forced to pay two thirds of their income in tax to the socialistic government (There are only more and less two socialistic parties taking turns governing Sweden).

Thus, in sweden there is only one idea of democracy, the government sponsored one. All other ideas are brutally discriminated by huge welfare systems making sure the people will keep away from their family dreams and continue voting for the party. (China officials have visited, wondering how we do it.)

In Sweden it is illegal by law to use any of the peoples welfare resources for individual parents to raise their own children after they turn one years old. The children must instead be turned over to government professionals, or you have to live in poverty. This has resulted in tons of women feeling worthless and fathers feeling unwanted, enthusiastically seeking comfort by the `free` and `competent` government daycare to compensate their parental unsurity.

In Sweden we worship our own idea of equality: `Do not worry if you feel miserable, the government will take care of you - equality`. Outwardly Sweden boasts to be the most equal country in the world, but equality without individual respect is just equal misery. Real equality for all parents wanting to follow their hearts rearing their families, is lightyears away in the socialistic republic of Sweden.

Especially Swedish women but also children have lots of material welfare, but are lacking lots in emotional and physical welfare, with relative high rates of illnesses. A majorty of the women work in the government welfare system with low pay, unable to follow their heart and attend their personal or family welfare losses.

Raising children in Sweden.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

of all the '08 candidates...
Posted by: lexicon on Dec 10, 2007 1:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Romney has to be, hands-down, the candidate with the "most obfuscated downside". We can look at all the other candidates, and get a feel for just how whacked or stupid or crazy they might be able to get. Huckabee, for example...only slightly less insane (maybe) than Tancredo or (chuckle...) Duncan Hunter...and we can pretty well gauge just how bad they are.

But Romney is a shade, a ghost... he's a twinkie, all calories and no nutrition.

Giuliani we know would bring petty corruption to an art form in the Oval Office, no surprises there...but Romney...his "downside" is unfathomable.

and, in my humble opinion, his upside, like all of his republican brethren, is lilliputian.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Opinion polls a waste of time
Posted by: TennMom on Dec 12, 2007 11:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A recent Pew poll shows that only 53% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mormons. That's roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims."

Polls are a waste of time because there is never any explanation of the "numbers behind the numbers." I'm not a betting woman but, if given good enough odds, I'd wager that most Americans know as little about Mormons as they do about any other religion not their own. My only contact with (polygamist, gun-toting) Mormons consists of conversations with folks who have shown up on my doorstep, handed me tracts, and engaged me in polite conversation. Other than disturbing the rhythm of my day, they represent no more annoyance than the (no music, no dancing) Church of Christ, or the (no drinking, women are second-class citizens) Baptist door knockers, who cannot fathom that a small town Southerner might be Catholic, nor that I could possibly turn down the chance to attend Bible school or Wednesday night prayer meeting. I'm sure the (penny-pinching) followers of Judaism would be just as annoying if they decided to take the "knock on every door" approach. After all, how could any of them know that I'm a (dancing, beer drinking, statue worshipping) Roman Catholic?

Sarcasm: Get to know it. There is no other way to deal with the craziness that has enveloped our country. We last elected a president whom polls said was the candidate with which "most people would like to have a beer", even as he was running as a "Christian Conservative." We all know what a mess he has made, and are scratching our collective heads, (Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Church of Christ,et al) to determine how best to clean it up. To begin, we must recognize the myths we've assigned to religions not our own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Romney is way WRONG, at least according to Christ.
Posted by: Setnakt on Dec 13, 2007 2:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently the secularists as well as Jesus Christ both are "wrong" according to the idiot Romney who obviously like all brainwashed (psudo)religious fundy fanatics doesn't bother to read his own damn Bible. Maybe John Smith got a different "messiage for God" while he was making up his crap from his imagination. What a joke. Read Matthew 6:5 and shut the hell up Mutt Romney, go back to Utah, PLEASE!
Reverend Setnakt, SoT/SoA

~Xeper~

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]