Romney, Santorum, and God

[babylonsister]

http://prospect.org/article/romney-santorum-and-god

Romney, Santorum, and God

Steve Erickson

February 27, 2012

We ought to be talking more about candidates’ religious beliefs.


snip//

The religious component of the issue, however, hasn’t gone away. In an interview last October, Santorum stated in clearly pious terms his hostility to contraception as a license for “libertine” behavior not fully procreative in intent, and his resolve to press this opposition if he’s elected. If Santorum has the integrity to make clear such positions, the body politic should have the integrity to engage them rather than merely decry the intrusion of “theology,” a word that Santorum chose instinctively but not casually and which he now uses interchangeably with “ideology.” By the lights of Santorum’s values, ideology—whether it has to do with global warming, prenatal care, public schools, or the Right’s favorite perennial comparison of the president with Adolf Hitler—is inescapably theological, and any philosophical viewpoint that pretends otherwise is “phony.” Likewise the Republican Party’s theocratic wing, of which Santorum now is preeminent spokesman, regards anything that doesn’t conform to its religious values as an affront to all values.

At the heart of this debate is a reimagining of American history. The assertion over the past 30 years that the United States was created as a Christian nation, out of a Christian consensus, is factually and flatly false. No mention of God let alone Jesus—either explicit or euphemistic—appears in the Constitution, from the opening preamble to the final words of the 27th amendment, and in the Declaration of Independence, wherein it’s stated that people are endowed with unalienable rights, the word “Creator” wasn’t Thomas Jefferson just being lyrical. It was a semantic compromise arrived at among Jefferson, who believed in a God but had little use for organized religion, and who admired Jesus as a moral visionary but not as God’s Son; John Adams, who dismissed Judeo-Christianity’s contention of a Holy Trinity; and Benjamin Franklin, who publicly averred that the more arguments for God he heard, the greater his doubt grew. Thomas Paine, whose words rallied American revolutionists more than anyone’s except Jefferson’s, openly mocked Christianity: “What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married. The belief of this debauchery is called faith.” Abraham Lincoln, who defined the American idea more profoundly than anyone since Jefferson, had to explain his lack of faith in his 1846 campaign for Congress, allowing in his wry fashion that if other people wanted to be Christians, it was OK with him. Lincoln’s speech is a matter of record as are Adams’ letters and Paine’s writings, and Jefferson authored a book about Jesus that can be ordered from Amazon. In the face of such widespread and accessible documentation, the insistence on a national Christian identity is Orwellian.

Our new millennium had barely begun before, in a clash of skyscrapers and airplanes, the 20th century that was fought over ideology gave way to a 21st century that will be fought over religion, which is to say it will be fought over modernism, which every religion at its most fundamental rejects. When America’s savviest political sage, Jon Stewart, advised the cultural right a couple weeks ago that “you’ve confused the war on religion with not always getting everything you want,” he only proved to the Right his philistine incomprehension. Religion is totalitarian by definition—uncompromising because it sees itself as legislating God’s laws, which are not negotiable. To a Republican Party that sees itself as God’s party, to a Rick Santorum who sees himself as God’s president, distinctions between God’s law and man’s are fraudulent. If Santorum is the Republican nominee, his Catholic faith, to which no one doubts he’s entitled, will inform his stances on public policy, and before then it might be well if both the press and public decide to what extent it’s both fair and imperative that his religious opinions are part of the public discourse, even as Santorum himself, having infused his political rhetoric with the language of apocalypse, will then profess he’s being persecuted for it.

As for Mitt Romney, though his righteousness may be less fervent—because everything about Romney except his expediency is less fervent—the press and public must determine upon his nomination, should it come to pass, whether to consider his religion’s traditional estimation of African Americans as a damned race. They will have to decide whether to accept Romney’s claim that he doesn’t speak for his church and the church doesn’t speak for him. Separation of church and state is one thing. Separation of church and one’s self, as Santorum would be the first to tell him and as the rest of us might acknowledge, is another.

[starroute]

1. It all comes down to that "faithfully execute" part

Candidates have the right to have their policies informed by their religious beliefs. But in order to actually serve as president, you have to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This means executing the laws as written and as interpreted by the courts -- not rewriting and reinterpreting them according to your own biases, or executing some of them and not others.

Most Protestant churches, no matter how conservative, respect the idea of freedom of conscience. But Catholicism and Mormonism are both innately hierarchical. Whatever the leaders of the religion proclaim as dogma is binding upon all the followers. This is why John Kennedy had to deliver those assurances -- which Santorum found so barf-worthy -- that he wouldn't be bound by any papal fatwas.

In a very profound way, the presidential oath of office is a kind of litmus test. It's like the "forsaking all others" in marriage vows. It requires the person who takes it to "swear" as a matter of "faith" to place the US Constitution and the office of president ahead of any other allegiances. And candidates who adhere to hierarchical religions should most definitely be asked to say whether they could take such an oath in good faith -- or only with their fingers crossed behind their back.


On edit: It occurred to me that the word "solemnly" in the presidential oath is another indication that it should be seen as a religious vow, just as much as "swear" or "faithfully." Although the word "solemn" these days is generally used as a synonym for "serious," it goes back to the Latin "solemnis," which meant "consecrated, holy."

[longship]

2. Needs to be on front page

This essay nails it. The Repugs have morphed into nothing more and nothing less tan a theocratic cabal. The sooner the US --- Nea! The world. --- realizes this, the better things will be.

Religion and politics, religion and government are a toxic mix. Hasn't history taught anybody anything?

[babylonsister]

3. Thanks for your post; it's a big plus to what we all need to realize, but unfortunately won't. nt