A New American Holy War
"Yeah, the lack …" He paused. "But—well, the people who don't have a particular faith have a personal conviction. I said all forms of personal conviction. And personal conviction includes a sense of right and wrong and any host of beliefs someone might have. Obviously in this nation our religious liberty includes the ability to believe or not believe."
So, in the end, there it was, but it took a while. Not surprisingly, the politics of the primary season probably kept him from making himself clear from the start: to offer a hand to atheists and agnostics, while presidential, would do him little good, and possibly much harm, with the Iowa voters he needs.
Romney also conflated religion and morality, quoting John Adams, who said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion … Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people." True—but note that Adams spoke of morality and religion as separate things. Acts of charity and grace need not be religiously inspired; many are and many are not. Religious people can be intolerant, cruel and exclusionary; they can also be broad-minded, kind and welcoming. The same can be said of people who adhere to no religious faith.
After citing Adams, Romney said: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." The second part is an ancient theological tradition: without free will faith is not faith but coercion. The first point, however, is arguable, for societies can be secular, free and successful. I asked Romney to explain his thinking. In sum, he believes a republic is dependent on the virtue of the people, the virtue of the people is dependent on morality, and that morality is dependent on religion. To support his case he (wisely) alluded to Washington's Farewell Address, which says, "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports … let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." But Washington was simply raising a "caution," and it is a mistake to think that one need be religious to be moral.
Romney would have been on safer ground had he said that America has always been largely religious and largely free, and that America's religious traditions should fight for the freedom of all, if only out of self-interest. Without freedom of conscience, today's tyrant could be tomorrow's tyrannized, and the other way round. With freedom of conscience, we come closer to living out the promise Washington made in his 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, R.I., in which he said that the government of the United States was "to give to bigotry no sanction … and to persecution no assistance."
Romney's failure to make a noble public stand for the rights of atheists and skeptics is tactically understandable if intellectually disappointing. The man he is now trailing in Iowa is smooth on the campaign circuit, appealing to conservative Christians without alienating other kinds of voters. How long this will last is an open question. Huckabee the front runner is only now beginning to face new scrutiny. A speech he gave in 1998 is likely to come up again. Addressing Southern Baptist pastors gathered at the Salt Palace Convention Center, Huckabee, then governor of Arkansas, said that he "got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives … I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 03/17/2008 9:51:54 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: Conner @ 01/17/2008 3:59:13 AM
Comment: I'm backtracking quite a ways, but Mormonism isn't a cult, if a cult is defined as "anything that diverts from historical orthodox Christianity," I pose the question, who can define "historical orthodox Christianity?" The Church of Jesus Christ considers itself a restoration of original Christianity, as in, the doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. The Trinitarian doctrine was invented by the Nicean Creed in the times of Constantine, (at that time the Pagan emp. who presided over that counsel). That's one of many doctrinal misconceptions. Main stream Christianity has been polluted by papal theocrats, paganism, and biblical mistranslations. The Bible is the word of God, as long as it is translated correctly. Many plain and precious truths have been lost over the centuries. Therefore the bandwagon fallacy which transports the common contention that "Mormonism is a cult" merely denotes that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it..."(St. Matthew. 7:14).
Posted By: cyberella @ 01/07/2008 11:45:30 AM
Comment: The problem here is not Huck's faith or Romney's faith. When is the last time you saw someone of their faiths blow themselves up?