Recently, there was a strong reaction in the Blogosphere about Governor Mitt Romney's "Faith In America" Address. I noticed in particular the posts on Effect Measure, Matthew Yglesias, and Dispatches from the Culture Wars. There were many others, but the point is that Romney pushed everyone's buttons; some favorable, others not.
Personally, I though it was a confusing speech. Of course, there was the perplexing assertion that "freedom requires religion." That simply makes no sense. But what I found really odd was that he would make a big deal out of religious freedom at all. In a way, it is like a Republican giving a speech about health care: it simply plays into their opponent's strong suit.
After all, if someone really wants freedom of religion; if someone things that is a a really high priority; if someone is going to vote on that issue alone, then the last person they should vote for is Romney.
It is perfectly obvious that the best proponent for true freedom of religion, of all the candidates, is Dennis Kucinich.
Now, I can't prove this, but I believe it, and I am putting it in this post because I think it is important: Romney's view of "freedom of religion" is really the freedom to impose religion on others. Or at least, to impose religious influences upon others by means of government.
Romney is not alone in this, obviously. He would not be dangerous if he were alone. There are many who share this goal. Some operate together; some individually; some in a loose consortium. Some are shadowy, like The Family. Others, like the Christian Exodus, are forthright.
Notice that I am not saying Romney is a member of such an organization. However, he made it clear in his speech that he does not believe in complete separation of church and state. Sure, he said he believes in such separation. But he also said (at much greater length) that some people carry the separation too far:
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
Romney fails to understand the seriousness of the threat of theocracy. There are people, lots of people, powerful people, who believe that we should have a religious government on a permanent basis. That is every bit as radical as the notion that we should have a permanent Republican majority. It is horrifying.
I usually vote for Democrats, although not always. But I never would support someone who advocated a permanent Democratic majority. Or a permanent Green majority, or any other permanent majority. I was appalled when Bush was reelected in 2004, precisely because it was known at that time that the Republicans were making a concerted effort to establish a permanent majority. How could anyone support such a thing?
What we all need to do is to press for structural changes in our government to make such things less likely. That includes strict separation of church and state, as well as separation of powers, and checks and balances. Those traditions must be upheld. But it is not enough. We need more safeguards. Examples would include instant runoff voting, proportional representation, and greater transparency of lobbying efforts. Personally, I would like to see all lobbying efforts recorded and posted to the Internet. I would also like to see a system for complete transparency in the writing of legislation.
Christians need to understand that when they band together as Christians, they are lending their power to others. They have a responsibility to not lend that power to those who would abuse it. It is analogous to lending a gun to a habitual felon. Having a permanent majority of any group, whether a political party, a group of corporate shills, or a religion, is putting too much power in too great of a concentration. The responsibility to prevent this is not unique to Christians, of course, but at present, the threat of theocracy is particularly pressing.
Politics
Comments
My opinion of most Americans is that we are fat, stupid and lazy, and we tend to get the government that we deserve. This misanthropic opinion applies also to most Christian Americans, and in particular to those Americans, who identify themselves as Christians, and who think that they would like a Christian theocracy here. The reason I think that this group especially is fat, stupid and lazy (and ignorant) is that the Bible itself seems to inveigh against theocracy as a form of government, as in Mark 12:17, when Jesus reportedly said, "Render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's, and unto God, that which is God's". On a less concrete, but perhaps more important, level, it seems to me that the advocates of a Christian theocracy are either dupes or hypocrites, since the evangelical Christian notion of one's relationship with God is that this relationship is *personal*, to be obtained tby means of prayer, meditation, maybe some fasting and so forth. It cannot to be had by imposing someone's notion of Christian values on society at large. Good post, by the way.
Posted by: stumpy | December 14, 2007 10:14 AM
I guess "stumpy" refers to your penis.
Posted by: douchebag | December 14, 2007 10:24 AM
douchebag - Jesus Christ, that was written like a True Christian!
Posted by: J-Dog | December 14, 2007 10:44 AM
Except that Romney's speech was all about how religious freedom really means the freedom to be any kind of Christian you want, even [gasp] a Mormon. He doesn't mean the freedom to be any religion at all, or even no religion. Hence the tripe about needing a 'man of faith' in the White House.
Looked at that way, the speech was clearly designed to appeal quite directly to fundamental Christians in the Republican party.
Posted by: qetzal | December 14, 2007 11:52 AM
I don't mind a Christian theocracy. When Jesus comes again, that's what we'll have. (But before that happens, you'll have a godless theocracy for a few years.) What I DON'T want, as a Christian, is a Mormon theocracy. And given Mitt Romney's temple oath, called the Law of Consecration, that's what he's sworn to help usher in as President.
For documentation, check out
romneyforpresident.townhall.com
Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.
(Funny photos too!)
Posted by: mish | December 14, 2007 11:58 AM
Judging by the title, I expected this post to touch on the fact that one of the duties of the Christian, as they see it, is to convert others, i.e. force their beliefs on others. That is what they want the freedom to do, that is what they should be prevented from having the power to even attempt, and that is the problem with having a Christian-dominated government. That's all the more true given the US Christians' tendency to imbue militarism with religious sanctity.
Posted by: deang | December 16, 2007 4:13 PM
Looked at that way, the speech was clearly designed to appeal quite directly to fundamental Christians in the Republican party.
Posted by: kozmetik | December 23, 2007 4:37 PM