- 1
- 2
Church and State
The College Station speech was not without its clunkers. "Religion requires freedom" is, in one sense, true, in that coerced faith is no faith. But religious faith has flourished under harsh persecution, not least during the twentieth century (when more Christians died because of their convictions than in the previous nineteen centuries of Christian history combined). That "freedom requires religion," the obverse Romney assertion, was another clumsy formulation. A freedom that reduces to "my way" is, if course, no freedom, but simply license. And it is certainly true that biblical convictions about human nature, human community, and human destiny have shaped the freedom project in the United States and elsewhere. Still, great champions of the politics of freedom ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Winston Churchill have been "religious" in only a generic, even deistic, sense. Here, Romney's attempt at the kind of rhetorical parallelism that Ted Sorenson made a trademark of JFK's speeches ("Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.") didn't quite come off, at either end of the proposition. (Memo to all presidential candidates and speechwriters: trying to imitate Sorenson is like trying to imitate H.L. Mencken; it can't be done. So don't do it.)
One might also raise questions about Romney's promise that no church "authorities," of any faith, "will ever exert influence on [my] presidential decisions." Well, yes, if by "exert influence" you mean "determine." But if by "influence" you mean "persuade," why should a President Romney, or any president, deny himself the counsel of the nation's religious leaders? And on the flip side of the coin, do religious authorities lose their rights as citizens to "petition the government" when they assume responsibility for their congregations? The point Romney was trying to make here is a crucial one: that there is a crucial distinction between political authority and spiritual authority in a just state. But Romney's formulation left something to be desired.
Another failed attempt at a Sorensonian parallelism was Romney's assertion that "No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion." The second half of that claim is certainly true; but wasn't the Southern Christian Leadership Conference "dictating" to the state when it declared segregation and miscegenation laws a violation of both the Constitution and the moral law? We all understand--or should--that religious organizations ranging from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to Focus on the Family to the Union of American Hebrew Congregations do not constitute a parallel government. Still, American public life would be much the poorer if religious organizations could not call the state to judgment when, in their conscientious reasoning, the state was acting unjustly.
These clunkers do not, however cancel or significantly detract from Romney's accomplishment. In the midst of some very high-stakes presidential politics, Mitt Romney gave eloquent expression to the conviction that the institutional separation of church and state does not, and cannot, mean the exile of religiously informed moral conviction from the American public square. By lifting up the grammar of shared moral convictions as the means by which all Americans can engage in the public conversation that is democracy's lifeblood, and by reminding us that the adventure of democracy involves far more than the contest of interests, Governor Romney did his country a genuine service--whatever the political consequences for his campaign.
George Weigel, a NEWSWEEK contributor, is distinguished senior fellow of Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center.
© 2007
- 1
- 2
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 04/06/2008 4:12:50 PM
Comment: Mixing religion and politic is dangerous it is a fact! the middle east is a good example. religions have to stay out of politics. Period!
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 03/17/2008 9:57:35 AM
Comment: There are people who abuse the term or concept ???freedom of religion??? without really understanding the true depth of the words involved. Lets start with the word religion. What is a religion: the belief, habit, ritual, thought, or faith? I believe all synonyms would apply to the definition of the word. Religion could be how I tie my shoes, my political ideas, my thoughts on science, or my feelings toward a particular brand name (in some cases consumerism qualify as religion). Many only argue that religion is strictly a word with a monopoly pertaining only to God or the Church. If you can make the argument that even atheistic approaches that of a religion; then one has to accept that my views on foreign policy or free trade qualify as a religion. Religion is a single or series of repeated behaviors and or thought. That is why we have a freedom of speech, privacy, and the freedom of religion within the constitution. All the concepts of the document from our revolutionary era uphold one another. They cannot exist without the other. These rights are all a form or relative or thought. They are all an attempt to protect the freedom of thought. Such wording of the constitution has to be interpreted with the full meaning of the word. For words are ideas, concepts, or theologies in and of themselves. Now think about the word freedom. I hope we all understand what freedom is. As well we should also think about what we do not have the freedom to do. There are many thoughts that are originated within Biblical religion that people do not have the right to do; consider many verses of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Revelation, and other books of the Bible. (I would hope we all know which verses they are) We do not have a total freedom for Biblical Church based religion. If we did, we would be living in a world of chaos, torture, and general madness including witch burnings, stoning, forced conversion, or beheadings. There are concepts in the secular world that are beliefs which are illegal they are the current laws on the books. Those laws are a record of what belief or thoughts you shall not hold. So beware when Biblical religion claims they have the power, the right, or the protection to conduct their actions when in conjunction with the government. There are some who would claim that Biblical religion has the freedom of religion as to fuse with the government or take on the responsibilities/functions of government with tax dollar support. My faith-based program is the issue and unconstitutionality of faith based programs and any vicarious use of those programs for the potential of converts via the heading of people to faith based services. The Church should function independently from government at all times. This serves the society in protection of the true freedom of religion, our freedom of thought.
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 03/17/2008 9:55:36 AM
Comment: The term Secular has been tainted by many in the US to mean Atheism with out thinking about why government is Secular. Secular government is the removal of religion from state, the removal of religion from reason, logic, and law while respecting its existence outside of government. Secular Government protects the freedom of religion by not including it in the laws that govern the nation. Steven Waldman (speaking of faith NPR) could not be more incorrect when he mentions the founding fathers personal belief as proof that religion or the church should fuse with government. State written prayers, church/religion, or state belief systems violate the individuals right to believe as they choose. Steven Waldman should realize that a secular government keeps any singular form of religion from taking control of the government. A secular system of democracy is the cornerstone to the foundation of the amendments that allow citizens the right to believe in any or no religious system. The separation of church and state or the anti-establishment clause of the constitution allows Christian religious conservatives to practice their faith as they see fit. As well it protects the Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religion, the freedom of religion does not mean that any one religion has a right to use the state as a tool for self-advancement. The argument that the separation is a gray area is a fallacy. A nation is either secular or theocratic. There is no gray area. The separation of church and state was not intended for the flourishing of any one religion. It was intended to keep all belief free by keeping the state out or belief. There is no mention of any sectarian definition of God used in any historical document of the US, nor should there be. Waldman should remember that there was no founding faith outlined in the declaration of independence or the constitution. I would ask Waldman who???s God does it refer to? Does religion truly make for improved civic or individual behavior patterns? Some of the worst elements of society have been devoutly religious, Hitler, the BTK killer, the leaders of the Christian and Muslim crusades, the witch hunters of Europe and early America, Bin Laden, and on and on it goes. Yes there was Stalin and Poll Pot but they pale in comparison to the religious violence perpetrated over the millennia. So I would argue that the founding fathers knew history well and that is why they created a secular government even while they may have been religious themselves. It is sad that many Christians hear the term religion and think only of themselves. How greedy and self-serving. We must realize that secularism rejects religion in government while recognizing its right to exist separate from government, in the privacy of your home and places of worship. It recognizes God given rights while not recognizing any particular organized religion.