Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Fri

07

Dec

2007

What Bothers Me About the “Issue” of Romney’s Mormonism
Friday, 07 December 2007 01:54
by Andrew Bard Schmookler

I wrote and posted this piece last night — i.e. December 5th, the day before Romney’s speech on the subject — and didn’t know that Romney himself would be making a similar point about the “no religious test” phrase that appears in the Constitution. So this piece wasn’t, at the time of its posting, the “Me, too” statement it might appear to be in the wake of Romney’s speech addressing his “Mormonism issue.”

Let me say at the outset that I do not like Romney as a candidate. The eagerness with which he has made fascist noises — wishing we could double Gitmo, for example — in order to out-Bush the Bushites and thus, presumably, appeal to the Republican base, has repelled me. And I don’t believe that his switches on policy issues — from when he was trying to appeal to the voters of liberal Massachusetts to now when he’s trying to appeal to the national Republican base — is due to any sincere conversion experience, or to anything other than a consistent ambition to gain powerful office through the election process.

But it bothers me that Romney’s Mormonism is the issue for some voters — Christian conservatives, according to the reports — that it evidently is. Not because I favor Romney but because I am concerned about the integrity of America’s constitutional democracy.

Our Founders had rather little to say about religion in the Constitution, other than the first amendment’s assurance of religious liberty to all citizens and its saying that government should stay out of the religion business (the “establishment” clause).

And one more thing. The Constitution says:

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Which means that our Founders did not want office-holders to have to meet any particular religious standard in order to qualify for those offices.

Making an issue of Romney’s Mormonism strikes me, therefore, as running contrary to the intent of our Founders for how we are to think about a person’s qualifications for office.

I can understand how voters, when considering a candidate who belongs to a hierarchical religion, might wish to be assured that, if elected, the candidate would not be himself governed by any authority above him in that religious hierarchy. This was the assurance that John F. Kennedy gave the country when he ran for the presidency in 1960. And if people wanted to hear any such assurance from Romney, it wouldn’t offend me.

Nor would it bother me if people looked to a candidate to see whether his religion had implications for his positions on public policy, and opposed that candidacy if those positions differ from their own.

But as far as I can tell, no one among the conservative Christians objecting to Romney’s Mormonism has pointed out any way that his religion has implications for policy that would differentiate Romney from a conservative Baptist or any other conservative Christian denomination. It would appear that their objection is focused specifically on religious belief itself. They don’t like the idea of a president whose theology is different from theirs.

In my view, in the light of what our Founders wrote into the Constitution about “religious tests,” that objection is unAmerican.

This strikes me as yet another instance of a larger phenomenon that disturbs me even more deeply: that a whole swath of people in America have so little regard for, or understanding of, what America is about, what it has been about since its inception.

Over the years, opinion pollsters have reportedly found a great many Americans, upon reading our Bill of Rights out of its hallowed context, are inclined to condemn it as pernicious and subversive agitprop. We’ve wondered here why it is that so many so-called patriots can be so apparently indifferent to presidential assaults on our Constitution. Once again, I’m saying that “true patriotism” involves an embrace of the heart and soul of America — its defining document with its structures attempting to assure liberty and justice for all — and not of the flag that merely stands for that heart and soul.

America was defined most emphatically not to be a dictatorship, and not to be a theocracy.

To those who fail to grasp what this country is about, but who declare themselves to be the greatest patriots, I say: You can be in favor of a theocracy or a dictatorship, or you can be lovers of America, but you cannot be both.
More from this author:
The “Prophetic Social Movement”: Then and Now (6825 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler On Election Night of 2004, as I lay in bed much of the night awake and miserable, I found myself teetering on the...
The Dems’ New Power: Investigative Hearings Done Right (5956 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler On Election Day, America took a step that history may show to have been absolutely crucial in saving this republic....
Waging Battle, Building Peace: The Paradox Confronting the Democrats (6141 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler Confronting the Paradox The goal is no less than to defeat the evil that, in recent years,...
The Dems’ First Step on Iraq: The Kind of Hearings We Need (6454 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler WHERE CHICKENS COME TO ROOST The Democrats need to achieve two things with respect to the mess in Iraq: 1)...
When Failure is Better than Success: What Americans, and the World, Owe to the Disaster in Iraq (9461 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler There can be no doubt that the failed American invasion of Iraq has been a terrible thing. Because of...
Related Articles:
About (12531 Hits)
Atlantic Free Press was founded in September 2006 by Publisher Richard Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands and Editor - Journalist Chris...
You and What Army? Bush Legions Starting to "Unravel" (12208 Hits)
Is it possible the largest and most advanced military in the history of the universe is ready to bust? According to General Barry McCaffrey (ret.)...
What Vote-Theft Conspiracy? (7649 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff, The big losers on Election Day were of course President Bush and the Republican Party, but there was another loser too: the...
What do we do now? (6001 Hits)
by Frank Pitz In the 1972 movie The Candidate, newly (and surprisingly) elected candidate Bill McKay – played by Robert Redford –...
They Hate Our Freedom: The Truth about the Military Commissions Act (8502 Hits)
By Aaron Sussman On October 17th, with Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and Donald Rumsfeld standing behind him, George W. Bush solemnly ...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)add comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top