TheGraphicOnline

Why is it that during the Christmas season we always seem to get the best and worst of what religion means in politics? Maybe it’s because that’s when our own religious emotions are highest and therefore our tolerance of diversity is lowest.

All year we debate the “separation of church and state.” Or we decry the so-called lack of prayer in schools. Or whether sectarian prayer belongs inside or outside the state legislature. And at least since 9/11 we debate whether Muslims deserve any tolerance.

Now it’s the Mormons. Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney found that he was under such heavy pressure in the Iowa caucus that he felt compelled to explain and justify his religion. The pressure came from late-arriving candidate Mike Huckabee, ex-governor of Arkansas, who is appealing strongly to the 40 percent of caucus members who are self-described evangelical Christians. With his own brand of political charity, Huckabee, a Baptist minister, piously declared that, oh no, he would not brand Mormonism as a cult, but he made sure all the voters knew that he was a “Christian leader.”

Incidentally, did you know that five U.S. Senators are Mormons — Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, Gordon Smith, Michael Crapo and Robert Bennett? Neither did I. I don’t recall anyone questioning their ability to serve the country.

Well, Mitt went ahead and made what they are calling his “JFK Speech,” alluding to Jack Kennedy’s 1960 address to the ministerial association in Houston, Texas explaining his Catholicism. Romney made his speech at the George H.W. Bush library in Texas. ( Why do these pols have to go to Texas to bare their political souls on religion?) They say Mitt’s speech was a good one — until he contradicted himself at the end.

Why It’s The Wrong Answer

Why do I say that Mitt gave the wrong answer? Let me first explain the right answer part. As the columnist E.J. Dionne reported, at least he didn’t try to explain the Book of Mormon: “Instead, he challenged Americans to live up to the demands of pluralism rooted in liberty.” And he quoted Romney as declaring: “Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.” Further, he agreed with Romney’s specific challenge: “There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.” So far, so good. Romney made a very clear-cut and forceful statement of basic American principles. Then he blew it.

He followed with the assertion: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.” This is the part that so many people have trouble with. Romney has every right (even a religious obligation) to declare his personal belief, but not as part of his campaign speech. As Dionne noted: “With those words, Romney legitimized the most fundamental test being imposed upon him in some evangelical Christian quarters.” And he added: “He was telling them he deserved an A on the religious exam (but in doing so) didn’t he undercut his central and proper contention that a candidate should not be asked to ‘describe and explain his church’s
distinctive doctrines’. ”

Giving The Right Answer

If I were ever to run for public office — God forbid! (that’s just an expression; God can take care of his own forbidding) — I would use a simple five-word answer to anyone who asked me for a declaration of faith. It is an answer I urge any presidential candidates to use, although it would probably guarantee their non-election. But it is the right answer, and as Henry Clay said, “I’d rather be right than president.”

Let’s imagine a dialogue between me (as a candidate) and some sort of questioner, when he asks: “Will you please explain to us your religious beliefs?” Here’s my five-word answer: “It’s none of your business.” “What!” he will exclaim, “don’t you have strong beliefs you’ll tell us so we can decide whether you are the right or wrong type of person?” “Yes, but they are my personal beliefs. You can find out what church (or non-church) I belong to — that’s a matter of record. Do with it what you will, but I will not go further.” “Are you ashamed of your beliefs?” “No, but they are my own and have no place in a political discussion. Furthermore, are you trying to make me violate the Constitution of the United States?” “What do you mean?” “Are you familiar with Article VI of the Constitution?” “No, whazzit say?” “Among other things, it says that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.”

The questioner gasps: “You sure it says that?” “Yes.” “Why didn’t anyone ever tell me about it?” “Well, it’s there and has been for more than 200 years. We swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, not to any religion, even one we happen to believed in personally. As a candidate, we swear (or affirm) allegiance only to the Constitution and, in effect, promise to serve all citizens equally — those of our own religion, those of different ones, those of no religion. We are bound to serve the best interests of all citizens under the laws governing all of us, hopefully ones that are fair and just. That’s the basis of our country, not a profession of any religious adherence. That’s what makes our country different. It was founded on the principle of equal justice for all, regardless of personal belief. It’s what we can be proud of.” “Well,” the questioner would probably say, “I suppose you’re right. But I’d still like to know what you really believe.” And I would answer: “It’s none of your business.”

–Vic Jose

For the “Introduction” to this web site and all other articles appearing on this page, click “Archives.”

Vic Jose :: Dec.10.2007 :: Uncategorized ::

Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed