On December 6, 2007, former Massachusetts Governor and Presidential candidate Mitt Romney delivered a speech at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas titled "Faith in America" [Transcript & Audio]. Romney, a Mormon, gave the speech in an attempt to convince evangelical Christians that they could vote for him in good conscience. The complex relationship between Mormonism and Christianity is beyond the scope of this diary, but this much is clear: both religions depend crucially on "faith" in origin stories that do not withstand rational scrutiny. Romney placed faith at the center of his address and argued that evangelical Christians should support him politically because he is a person of faith, but they should not concern themselves with the contents of that same faith. In so doing, Romney crafted the one standard that-- if adopted by Republican voters-- would maximize his chances of gaining the nomination.
The mainstream media reacted to Romney’s speech with near-universal admiration. Over the course of two news cycles, the prevailing narrative viewed Romney’s address as "courageous," "forthright," "thoughtful" and "groundbreaking". Romney was viewed as having dealt successfully and sensitively with an important and volatile issue. The election forged ahead. Romney was unable to assert himself as the main alternative to eventual nominee John McCain (a role assumed by Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher and believer in Biblical inerrancy), but Romney continues to be viewed as a serious figure with viable presidential aspirations.
Romney may or may not run for President again, and his faith address is merely one artifact in the vast debris field of the 2008 election. But the speech remains important for its series of astounding claims about the nexus between religious belief and politics, and for the fact that such claims were showered with unexamined encomium by those in a position to shape the bulk of our public discourse. This diary considers each of Romney’s five main arguments in turn.
1. Freedom Requires Religion
Among the most frequently quoted and praised passages in Romney’s address is the following:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
The first sentence makes two claims: (1) freedom requires religion; and (2) religion requires freedom. The next sentence is an assertion that supports a weaker cousin of the second claim. The third sentence merely restates the first sentence in melodramatic terms.
Romney’s assertion that religion requires freedom demonstrates a stunning ignorance of the many examples of religion flourishing in confinement-- from Protestantism during the Counter-Reformation to Islam in American penitentiaries. Religion clearly benefits from the freedom to practice and express it, but the relationship does not approach dependency.
Romney’s key claim-- that freedom requires religion-- is as preposterous as it is condescending. Romney offers no support for the notion that, for example, the freedom of atheists and agnostics (or deists, for that matter) depends in any way on religion, and gives us no reason to view this claim as anything other than an empty platitude. If one were to credit Romney’s notion of freedom’s dependency on religion, the following atheists and agnostics would represent but a tiny sample of unfree people: Ayn Rand, Sigmund Freud, Jean Paul Sartre, Katharine Hepburn, David Hume, George Carlin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Tom Wolfe, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Branson, E.M. Forster and Larry Flint.
At this juncture of the address, Romney makes no attempt to grapple with the most obvious intuition with respect to this matter-- namely, that freedom abhors religion. Religion in its organized form has operated historically as a great impediment to human freedom, limiting freedom of thought, expression, self-determination, movement and inquiry, to name a few. Like most religions, Christianity and Mormonism both rely on the authority concept of morality-- the notion that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on whether a supreme being commands or forbids it. Of all ethical systems contemplated by man, this is the most restrictive and the least conducive to the exercise of free will. Women whose lives have been narrowed by religious authority and children whose curiosities have been stunted by religious indoctrination would find Romney’s formulation absurd. If Romney would like to explore the relationship between freedom and religion, he may start by asking how much freedom Isaac felt as Abraham lifted the axe that would sever the boy’s head.
2. Criticism of Specific Religious Beliefs is Per Se Intolerant
Romney knows the key to securing evangelical votes is to appear as Christian as possible to evangelical voters. He also knows that if he wades beyond ankle-depth in the waters of Mormon history and theology, Christian voters (with no appreciation for the irony) will find his beliefs ludicrous and, worse in electoral terms, exotic. Therefore, Romney walks the evangelical voter down the stretch of doctrinal road shared by Mormons and Christians and then tells the voter that the rest of the Mormon story is, effectively, none of their business:
There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.
Having established that faith is extraordinarily important, Romney now forecloses any detailed investigation into the contents of faith. Criticism of specific beliefs is tantamount to intolerance; inquiry is frozen. In Romney’s view, it would be inappropriate to criticize a candidate who believes, for example, that we are currently living in end-times and are fast approaching an inevitable apocalypse. According to Romney, voters should not concern themselves with the details of a candidate’s religion, even if such details lead the candidate to believe, for example, that the National Institutes of Health does the Devil’s work. Or that condoms should not be distributed to inner-city teenagers. Or that now would be a good time for jihad. For Romney, the citizen’s only role is to appreciate and tolerate such beliefs, not criticize them.
3. Disclosure of Religious Beliefs is Unconstitutional
Romney then raises the ante, claiming that mere disclosure of a candidate’s specific religious beliefs would violate the Constitution of the United States:
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.
Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution provides as follows:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Although this provision is subject to some interpretive debate, there is universal agreement as to its core meaning: federal employees (whether elected or appointed) must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but no federal employee may be required to subscribe to any religion as a qualification for holding office.
Romney’s reading of the No Religious Test Clause-- that no candidate should feel pressure to describe or explain his church’s doctrines-- is pure fantasy. Romney is free to appeal to voters in any way he sees fit; he is free to discuss (or not discuss) any aspect of his history, personality, qualifications, views, beliefs and experiences. Romney may be faced with difficult choices as to how to handle questions regarding the unreasonable beliefs he is required to hold as a Mormon, but nothing in the Constitution bails him out in this regard.
4. All Faiths Are Inherently Good; The Only True Evil Is Secularism
Romney’s next move is a lavish flattering of several electorally significant religious constituencies, punctuated by a disdainful swipe at the one group whose beliefs should be, in Romney’s view, thoroughly investigated, summarily rejected, and certainly not tolerated-- secularists:
I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.
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.
After lecturing us on the virtues of tolerance, Romney suggests that tolerance should not be extended to citizens who have determined for themselves that faith is not the answer. For Romney, the great majority of Americans comprise a unified community of faith, while the few non-believers are, alas, cultish and wrong. This may be good politics, but it is entirely devoid of civic virtue.
Furthermore, let us assume Romney is correct, and that non-believers are in fact "intent on establishing a new religion in America". By Romney’s own standards, the details of the contents of this new religion would be off limits. Romney, by criticizing and dismissing this "new religion," fails his own "test of tolerance" and shatters the illusion that he is standing on any sort of principle at all.
5. Europe is Secular, and Therefore Woeful
Having bemoaned the evils of secularism, Romney concludes with a bizarre detour through Europe, accusing the entire continent of being irreligious and decrepit.
I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
Setting aside Romney’s blatant lack of statesmanship here, and leaving for another day a discussion of the conservative movement’s obsession with the alleged inferiority of European life (utter nonsense, to be sure), the task of unpacking this tortured passage remains difficult.
Romney invokes America’s tradition of religious liberty, and then leaps to the observation that the cathedrals of Europe are empty due to the fact that Europeans are too "’enlightened’" to stop and pray. For Romney, state-sponsored religion in Europe led to decay in religious belief, which in turn caused the greatest harm of all-- dilapidation of church buildings. Once again, Romney does not articulate the links between these concepts, and makes so many tacit assumptions that it is hardly possible to make sense of him. We are, however, left with a single clear impression: Europe is ungodly and bad; America is pious and good.
More importantly, Romney uses the word "enlightened" mockingly, dismissing out-of-hand the fact that advances in human knowledge during the Age of Reason made it difficult for thoughtful people to continue to subscribe to religious doctrine. As in his discussion of secularism, Romney acts as judge and jury with respect to the concept of human enlightenment. His verdict? Enlightenment is a ridiculous conceit that may be dismissed wholesale, along with the people who adhere to it.
For Romney, non-believers are due none of the deference or respect afforded to people who believe, for example, that: (i) modern humans are threatened with spiritual harm by the lingering essences of billions of aliens brought to Earth 75 million years ago by Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy; (ii) in an ancient battle in upstate New York, fair-haired and fair-skinned people (the "Nephites") fought a tribe (the "Lamanites") whose dark skin was a punishment for defying God; or (iii) God telekinetically impregnated a human virgin for the purpose of using the offspring’s murder on Earth as a means of absolving mankind of the innumerable sins (past, present and future) committed by its membership. For Romney, a true American chooses one of these stories (or a similar one), and invests "faith" in it. To be skeptical of that exercise, according to Romney, is to act like a European, contributing to the creeping evil of secularism that threatens the fabric of our society.
Conclusion
This diary may be accused of taking Romney’s speech too seriously. After all, the speech was a transparently cynical exercise crippled by faulty logic and blatant hypocrisy. Romney’s textbook triangulation against secularists and his depiction of Europe as a vague, undifferentiated "other" seem almost childish. But this was a carefully crafted, heavily vetted address by a leading national politician. Over the past three decades, the American people have transferred vast amounts of political power to a religious movement that benefits profoundly from the false assumption that faith is inherently good and non-belief is intrinsically bad. Our media class has been trained to acquiesce in the fraud, which includes the marginalization of non-believers and the systematic empowerment of anyone who purports to speak for people of faith. The first step in reversing this disturbing trend is to take politicians seriously when they wield religion as a tool for political gain, and subject their words to standards of reason. By this measure, despite what was written in the op-ed pages and broadcast on the cable news networks, Romney’s faith speech utterly failed.