Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS
Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly -- An online companion to the weekly television news program
Keyword Search
Topic Index Stories by Week
Home
Current Stories
Headlines
Election Coverage
Special Issues
TV Schedule
Calendar
Newsletter
Subscribe or unsubscribe to the E-mail Newsletter, or edit your preferences.
The Series
About the Series
Funding
Biographies
Awards
Credits
For Teachers
Overview
Lesson Plan List
Tips
Teacher Resources
Resources
Viewer's Guides
Videotapes
Featured Sites
Feedback
Contact Us
Story Suggestions

Entries tagged with “Constitution” from Religion and Ethics Newsweekly

If Thomas Jefferson is turning over in his grave today it is because he is doing cartwheels of delight. Mitt Romney's speech hit all the right notes to mollify the concerns of believers, especially evangelical Protestants, about his Mormon faith. Non-believers may be less impressed than the so-called values voters. But all of those evaluating Romney's remarks are debtors to Jefferson's advice on how to live with someone who doesn't share your views about things divine: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

The Jeffersonian moment in Romney's speech came not when he said, along with John F. Kennedy, that his duty as president would be to uphold the Constitution, not the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whether they know it or not, American Protestants do owe a great debt to Jefferson's understanding of the separation of church and state, and at one time evangelical denominations like the Baptists and Methodists knew this and gave their political support to politicians like the third president of the United States. In contrast, Mormons like Romney and Roman Catholics knew first hand that Protestants did not always play by the rules of separation to which they gave lip service. While Protestants could (and did) appeal to Jefferson's ideal to prevent Roman Catholics from receiving public aid for parochial schools, those same Protestants required the residents of the Utah territory to prohibit polygamy as a condition for being admitted to the Union. American Protestants also had little trouble spotting the potential for conflict between vows to uphold the U.S. Constitution and, say, Alfred Smith's or JFK's beliefs as Roman Catholics or Senator Reed Smoot's duties as an elder in the Mormon Church. They had greater difficulty detecting the possible opposition between their own reverence for God's holy word as revealed in the Bible and their loyalty to the Constitution, which did not mention their God. American believers have generally played fast and loose with the separation of church and state, and yesterday Romney competed with the best of them.

The actual Jeffersonian moment came just before his appeal to the separation of church and state. Romney ran through the religious virtues of fellow believers, from the profundity of the Roman Catholic Mass to the prayer life of Muslims. He then said, "It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions." The "great moral principles," he explained, "urge us on a common course." Romney could have said it as bluntly as Jefferson did, but he affirmed Jefferson's view that theology doesn't matter compared to ethics. An American may believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, that there are three persons in one God, or that men and women have the potential to become gods. But as long as he or she believes in the nation's great moral principles they make darned good neighbors.

In case they missed it, evangelical Protestants painted Romney into a corner, and he used their own brand of faith-based politics to escape. For over a quarter of a century the religious right has insisted that faith should be a crucial factor in national life. The logic varies, but the premises seemed to run something like this: public officials should be people of character; religious faith produces character; ergo public officials need faith. As long as the officials comfortable with this logic were Christian, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic (not to mention Republican), the argument retained its apodictic quality. But once a Mormon appealed to the argument, problems ensued. Some Christians began to think that generic faith is not sufficient but that the actual contents of one's faith, namely, doctrine, is important. For some reason, that concern did not apply to Pentecostal politicians who believe in speaking in tongues or Roman Catholics who believe in purgatory. This is because most of the arguments for faith-based politics were conveniently silent about the dots connecting faith, theology, and ethics. Advocates for religion in public life sided with Jefferson by valuing ethics more than doctrine.  

Of course, Jefferson was not the first president to take a pragmatic view of the intricacies of the divine mysteries. During the decade when Congress added "In God We Trust" to the nation's coins and "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, Dwight Eisenhower guaranteed that the deity being affirmed would remain vague and abstract: "Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is." Romney echoed that sentiment yesterday when he affirmed all of America's major faiths.  

Rather than being faulted for squishy ecumenism, Romney should be credited for cleverness to figure out that the advocates of religion in public life have never been overly concerned about theological orthodoxy. In a subtle way, he was saying to American believers that if you're going to make an issue of my Mormon faith, then you should likely reconsider your great admiration for the likes of Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington. And although secularists may have felt that Romney excluded them from his considerations yesterday, his warning has as much salience for those who take inspiration from Martin Luther King, Jr. as those who listen to James Dobson. Practically everyone in America these days is willing to live with Jefferson's solution. As long as religion comes out on the right side of political debate, by all means, let's affirm it.  

-- D. G. Hart is the author most recently of A SECULAR FAITH: WHY CHRISTIANITY FAVORS THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (Ivan R. Dee, 2006).

| Comments (0)

Mitt Romney's speech at the Bush Presidential Library is firmly anchored in what Jon Meacham, in his book AMERICAN GOSPEL, describes as the "public religion" of the nation's civic life. In a number of felicitous phrases replete with biblical allusions and echoes from the American civic canon, Romney pledged his absolute fealty to religious liberty, which he described as central to "America's greatness" and the survival of a free land. "Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in pray to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me," he declared.

Romney appealed to the "common creed of moral convictions" shared by all Americans, that every human being is a child of God and thus entitled to inalienable rights. In a Tocquevillian turn of phrase, Romney said that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." "Freedom and religion endure together," he said, "or perish alone." Evocatively, Romney also linked the Constitution's prohibition against state religion to the religious vitality in America, in contrast to Europe's established churches with cathedrals "so inspired...so grand...so empty."  

Because Romney's speech obviously harkens back nearly a half century ago to John Kennedy's address before Baptist ministers in Houston, it is instructive to compare the two. Like JFK, Romney pledged his loyalty to the Constitution and declared that if he was fortunate enough to take the presidential oath of office he would view that as "my highest promise to God." Like Kennedy, Romney assured his fellow Americans that "no authorities" of his church would "exert influence over his presidential decisions." In a direct echo of Kennedy's address Romney said that he was not a Mormon running for president but an American running for president who happened to be Mormon. Like Kennedy, Romney linked the history of his people to the American story of advancing tolerance and freedom, but he did so by shining the light on shortcomings: "Anne Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West."  

Unlike Kennedy, Romney did not entertain the possibility that a conflict could arise between the dictates of his religious faith and his constitutional obligations. Kennedy declared that if such a rare choice presented itself he would resign from office. Romney made no such declaration.  

Romney also had to go further in defining his faith than did Kennedy. Although he refused to explain his church's distinctive doctrines -- because to do so would "enable the religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution" -- Romney did declare his Christianity in simple, accessible language: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind." But he also embraced the "the faith of my fathers," pledging to be true to his Mormon beliefs. He did not think that would sink his candidacy because Americans respect "conviction" and "tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."

Tellingly, where Kennedy outlined the challenge from communism, Romney identified as a mortal threat to America the "theocratic tyranny" of "radical violent Islam." Though not likely to be well received by American Muslims, this phrase seems designed to create solidarity with the majority of non-Mormons in the nation.

Romney's speech was more overtly religious than Kennedy's. Kennedy in effect said that his faith would have no bearing on his public work, and he went out of his way to oppose positions -- such as state support for parochial schools -- backed by his church hierarchy. Declaring that the separation of church and state should be "absolute," Kennedy envisioned a civic life in which no religious body would seek to influence public policy (which he described as attempting to impose its will on officials).

Reflecting the tenor of public discourse in conservative circles today, Romney, in contrast, charged that church-state separation had been distorted by secularists in an attempt to remove religion from public life. "We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."

In evoking both the Bible and America's public religion, Romney described how he "was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor." He saw his "father march with Martin Luther King" and his "parents provide compassionate care to others." He said he was moved by "the Lord's words," in Matthew 25, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.           
 
Romney's speech celebrated religious pluralism in more vivid terms than Kennedy. Where Kennedy referenced the Jew, the Quaker, the Unitarian, or the Baptist who suffered persecution for their faith, Romney made a more personal declaration. He declared that he loved "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... and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."     

Romney's speech was thus even more ecumenical than Kennedy's. One could hear evocations, even, of John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio, when he spoke of how "reason and religion" join to lift the human spirit in the cause of liberty. 

Will the speech make a difference? Probably. It was an often eloquent and evocative address designed to allay concerns of evangelicals, tie his personal story to the nation's heritage, and appeal to the broader public. But it remains to be seen whether it will do enough to win the hearts of born-again Christians who still view Mormonism as a non-Christian cult. One thing is likely: whether or not Romney wins the presidency, his quest will renew and advance the distinctly American refrain for religious freedom.     

-- Allen Hertzke is professor of political science and director of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma.
 
| Comments (0)


Tag Cloud