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 “Values” from Religion and Ethics Newsweekly

The 2008 presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain will likely be remembered for engaging religion at two levels: one thematic, the other cultural and demographic. Each points to how political religion paradoxically threads through and yet divides the American landscape.

At the thematic level, one could not help but note two theological resonances that coursed through the Obama campaign: change and hope. Wittingly or not, he eschatologized his campaign message, calling for metanoia (conversion, change) and a new future in political and public affairs.

Barack 110508.jpgThis fact belies the claim that he and the Democrats lacked a framework for organizing their ideas. Theirs was a this-worldly eschatology, attending to shareable temporal goods and the changes necessary to secure them. Further, this appeal to change meant more than putting distance between a new order and the Bush administration. Distances are quantifiable, measurable, linear. Obama's appeal to change suggests a qualitative transformation in our discourse, priorities, interactions, and expectations.  The metaphors of change and hope, however unspecified they might have seemed for those looking for program specifics, spoke to deep existential frustrations and desires across the country. They spoke to those who believe that political action can be meaningful and connective.

At the cultural and demographic level, the Obama-McCain campaign left a different track record on matters of political religion. Far from offering unitive themes and images, religion was served up to underwrite the culture wars. Jeremiah Wright's prophetic pronouncements on the left, Sarah Palin's homophobic, theocratic evangelism on the right: here religion worked in the service of political partisanship. However true or distorted these accounts might have been, such representations of religion support the idea that religious communities are fringe groups led by gadflies who live in an alternative universe, one that has de facto seceded from American public life. Moreover, such accounts work to represent religion as a source of faith-based moral simplicity, a conversation stopper that testifies to little more than to anger, fear, and distrust.

Scholars, the media, and public intellectuals owe it to fellow citizens to offer up an account of political religion that is other than aggressively divisive and utilitarian. We need rich discourses -- informed by history, anthropology, philosophy, and social theory -- that speak anew to the politics and ethics of belief in an increasingly globalized and pluralistic public culture. Further, we must get beyond reducing religion to matters of an individual candidate's personal faith or a diffuse set of values on which she or he relies. A denser, more multilayered account of what religion can bring to the political table can attend to religions that operate within the contours of mutual respect and that contribute to the conscientious pursuit of goods that we can discover and share in common.

--Richard B. Miller is professor of religious studies and director of the Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions at Indiana University.

| Comments (0)

Some political pundits have suggested that Barack Obama's campaign has made faith-based outreach a lower priority in the final weeks of the campaign. Obama representatives strongly deny this. Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly managing editor Kim Lawton was at an Obama campaign briefing about religious outreach and describes what the representatives said.

Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.



| Comments (1)

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney discusses how his Mormon faith will -- and will not -- affect his politics, and he asserts that religion should not be forced out of the public square.
Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.

| Comments (10)

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)

Mitt Romney's speech sought to do several things. First and foremost, it sought to reassure wavering evangelical voters in Iowa that Romney shared their values and at least a core of their faith. In recent weeks, Mike Huckabee has been gaining rapidly on Romney's much better funded campaign, and Huckabee has been quick to trumpet his background as a Baptist preacher and his "Christian" credentials. Many evangelicals do not believe that Mormons are Christians and have been reluctant to support Romney at least in part for this reason. Second, it sought to present Romney as a candidate grounded in religious and family values to help him overcome an image as a candidate whose political views on abortion, gay rights, and immigration are dependent on which office he is seeking and what voters in that state believe. More generally, Romney sought to have a "presidential moment" -- to make a speech that would be remembered along with John F. Kennedy's famous speech of 1960 and express both the civil religion of America and also the nation's tradition of tolerance and inclusion. He probably failed at the first two tasks, but succeeded in the third.
 
Romney's speech probably did little to reassure doubtful evangelicals. He mentioned his Mormon faith only once, without any discussion of how that faith has informed his values. He professed a belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and Savior of mankind, said that he would take the oath of office on the Bible, and promised not to allow Mormon leaders to influence his policies. He also sent various signals: that he would appoint judges who might overturn Roe, that he supported the phrase "under God" in the pledge, that he opposed radical Islam. But Romney's single mention of his Mormon faith was the same number of times that he positively referred to the prayer habits of Muslims, and far less often than he referred to Catholics. His comment that he wished his faith tradition included elements of various other traditions seemed strange for someone strongly endorsing his own faith, and by downplaying entirely Mormon doctrine the speech appeared both somewhat defensive and perhaps not sufficiently serious about the ideas central to all faith communities.
 
The speech also did little to reassure those who believe that Romney has changed his politics to suit the voters he faces. If his faith informs his moral values, then why was he once a social liberal and now a conservative? Why has he recently taken such a harsh stand on immigration? Romney did point to his stable family -- something he shares with Huckabee but few other GOP candidates. But the speech did little to tell voters what core values have animated his political life.
 
On the third task, Romney did far better. He certainly looked presidential at the George Bush Library. He has the best head of hair among the Republican candidates, and it shone under the lights. He seemed serious, he seemed firm, he seemed inclusive. The imagery of the speech worked well.
 
More substantively, he hit a number of important themes about the relationship between religion and politics, between church and state, and between tolerance and a religious people. Overall the text has drawn praise from conservatives who already supported Romney and from some liberals who would never vote for him. There were rhetorical flourishes that we associate with strong presidents, including a poetic reference to the "symphony of faith." His telling of the story of Sam Adams leading an ecumenical prayer echoes the great orators of the presidency, who bring anecdotes to bear at the right time to sell the audience on broader but more abstract points. His linking of Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and Brigham Young was a powerful statement as well. The speech was well written and well delivered.
 
But three things about the substance of the speech struck me as odd. First, Romney made a strong claim that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Certainly genuine religion requires freedom to flourish, but many deeply religious states are not free. And freedom seems to flourish quite well in the secular soil of Europe, where Romney notes that the cathedrals stand empty. Certainly Sweden is freer than Nigeria, for all of the secularism of the former and the religiosity of the latter. 
 
Second, the speech sought to strike an inclusive tone, but also to perpetuate the culture war. It tried to put evangelicals, Pentecostals, conservative Catholics, Muslims, and Mormons on one side, and the religion of secularism on the other. In Romney's telling, the founders were all deeply religious, but in fact some were secular, and they fought alongside Christians and Jews for freedom and helped to establish the Constitution, which gives no religious tests and allows all to worship but establishes no church. Thus, Romney tries to have it both ways -- to give a speech that extols the virtue of tolerance while still stoking the fires of cultural conflict, at once uniting Americans and then dividing Americans into us versus them.
 
Finally, the speech that boldly proclaimed no one should be held to a religious test also very carefully spoke of religious doctrine -- of the role of Jesus. Many evangelicals with whom I have spoken since the speech have suggested that they found this note jarring, reminding them in fact of theology after they had been primed to put it behind them. Strategically, Romney may have believed this is necessary to win in Iowa, where he has invested so much. But it leaves him open to questions about the way Mormons conceive of Jesus in their faith, and groups working against Romney in Iowa have already begun to highlight this theological divide.
 
Overall, the speech was a strong one and may well help Romney if he wins the Republican nomination. But whether it helps him in Iowa remains to be seen.

-- Clyde Wilcox is a professor of government at Georgetown University. He has written and edited many books and articles on religion and politics, including ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IN AMERICAN POLITICS (Westview Press, 2006).
 
| Comments (0)

A lot can hang on a preposition. Mitt Romney first promised a speech about his faith, then backed off to offer a broader take on America's religious landscape and its heritage of religious freedom. So rather than offering an apologetic for his own faith, Romney instead offered an account of "Faith in America." But the speech has me wondering whether there's a difference; more specifically, I wonder what's at stake in that "in." From where I sit, it looks like Romney's "own" faith is faith in America. Americans needn't worry about Romney's Mormonism because, at the end of the day, the faith that trumps all others is "Americanism."  

Don't get me wrong: this religion has a long and illustrious history (documented in David Gelertner's recent book, AMERICANISM: THE FOURTH GREAT WESTERN RELIGION). It is a noble faith that feeds off the blood of its martyrs - in particular "the greatest generation" to which Romney first appeals -- who made the greatest sacrifice for the sake of the religion's highest value: freedom (understood, I should note, in largely negative terms as freedom of choice). Indeed, "freedom" and "liberty" are the mantras of this faith, and Romney's speech invokes these shibboleths no less than thirty times (God or "the Creator" or "divine author" comes in at a close second with 21 references). And Romney doesn't fail to allude to the great artifacts of this religion. Americanism has its own sacred documents (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), its own saints (the Founding Fathers), and has even birthed its own cathedrals and grottos (just stroll the National Mall).

So if Mitt Romney was looking to quell concerns about his religion, I think he's performed admirably! He has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that he is an "Americanist" like almost every other presidential candidate (from I don't care which side of the aisle). He is an American before he is a Mormon. He is primarily interested in conserving America's role as a hegemon ("preserving American leadership" is the guise under which he segues to talk about religion). And he enthusiastically adopts Sam Adams's axiom that it's not the specifics of piety that matters, but rather whether one is a "patriot."  

If conservatives were worried about his Mormonism, I think Romney has laid his cards on the table and said to them: "Look, don't worry. Mormonism doesn't prevent me from being an Americanist.  We're brothers in that cause."  

In a way, this is refreshingly honest theology. In fact, if one pays close attention to the actual theology at work here -- that is, if one starts asking just which God is being invoked -- one finds that it is a particular deity: "the divine 'author of liberty.'" The god of the culture warriors has always been a generic god of theism (precisely like the god of the Founding Fathers): a "God who gave us liberty" (to do what we want). The "Creator" is a granter of inalienable rights and unregulated freedoms, a god who shares and ordains "American values." If evangelical culture warriors had worries about Romney's faith, his jeremiad today should confirm that he pledges allegiance to the same "God of liberty" that they do. We're all Americanists now.  

But I hope Mr. Romney and his culture warrior friends (whether on the right or left) won't be surprised if some of us find it hard to believe in Americanism and its God of liberty. Some of us just can't muster faith in the generic theism that is preached on the campaign trail, whether from the right or left. Some of us Christians have a hard time reconciling the Almighty, all-powerful, law-giving God of liberty with the crucified suffering servant born in a barn and executed at the hands of the elite. Some of us are trying to figure out what it means to be a people who follow one who relinquished his rights rather than asserted them, who considered submission a higher value than freedom. We serve a God-man who wasn't concerned with "preserving leadership" and the hegemony of the empire's gospel of freedom, but rather was crushed by its machinations for proclaiming and embodying another gospel.  

We're not out to win a culture war; we're just trying to be witnesses. We're not out to "transform" culture by marshaling the engine of the state; we're trying to carve out little foretastes of a coming kingdom. And so we can't share Mr. Romney's evangelistic zeal for the god of Americanism.

-- James K.A. Smith is an associate professor of philosophy at Calvin College and a fellow at Calvin's Center for Social Research. His books include INTRODUCING RADICAL ORTHODOXY (Baker, 2004).
| Comments (4)

Governor Romney and his staff clearly knew they were dealing with the major issue that stands between him and the Republican nomination. This speech shows all the signs of careful craftsmanship. As written, it is a powerful address.

It must be remembered that Romney's current task is to win the Republican nomination, not the general election. He knows the electorate that awaits him in the primaries, with its disproportionately powerful bloc of conservative evangelical Christians. He needed to appeal to this group, many of whom believe that Mormonism is a kind of cult.

Read in this way, most of the speech offers material that could have been delivered by any socially conservative Christian preacher, activist, or politician. These standard themes include the following:

--Religion was central to the founders of our nation.

--Religious and moral values impose limits on the behavior of sinful people and thus protect our civilization and preserve liberty.

--The American way of life requires a robustly religious people.

--While we must institutionally separate church and state, we must not remove religious symbols from the public square or deny our religious heritage.

--God is the Creator and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of humanity.

--Religious beliefs motivate movements of conscience in America.

--Religion is not merely a private affair.

But Governor Romney struck other notes that reflect his particular experiences as a member of a minority religious community in America:

--Linking himself to John F. Kennedy, Romney argued that no person should be elected or denied election to the presidency due to his faith.

--In another allusion to Kennedy, Romney flatly ruled out any influence of church authorities on presidential decisions if he is elected.

--In a creative move that attempted to draw a connection to Abraham Lincoln, Romney argued that America's "political religion" requires a president to place his obligations to the rule of the law and the Constitution above any other moral or religious duty.

--Romney refused to disavow or distance himself from his Mormon (a word he used only once) faith and indicated that to do so would be to deny his own beliefs and the "faith of my fathers" -- an allusion to the old hymn, perhaps?

--The governor emphasized religious liberty and toleration in a stronger way than one often finds on the conservative evangelical right; he lamented that our ancestors too often forgot the value of religious liberty once they had gained their own freedoms; and in naming exiled victims of religious intolerance he included Brigham Young.

--Romney refused to be drawn into a point-by-point defense of Mormon doctrine on the basis that this would enable violation of the "religious test" clause of the Constitution.

How shall we hear and interpret this speech?

If I were an atheist or secularist, I would not find that this speech included me in its circle of who counts as a constructive American citizen. If, as Governor Romney said, "Freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom," then atheists or secularists by definition undermine freedom, the most cherished American value.

If I were Hindu, Buddhist, or Confucian, or a member of any other non-western religious tradition, I would feel invisible, because such faiths were invisible in the speech.

If I were Muslim, I would appreciate mildly the weak affirmation of our tradition's "frequent prayer," but would probably be not at all happy about the various attacks on "radical Islamists," a staple of so many speeches on the right these days.

If I were Jewish, I would take little comfort in the brief mention of our "ancient traditions...unchanged through the ages," because Judaism is an evolving contemporary religion and not just an ancient tradition.

As a centrist evangelical, I accept some but not all of the basic Christian right boilerplate that Romney articulated in his speech. I appreciate the religious liberty notes that his own experience as a religious minority caused him to emphasize. I agree that no president should be elected or rejected because of his faith and that no official church body can be allowed to dictate a policy position to a president.

On the other hand, as one who believes that Jesus Christ is Lord of my life and of the whole world, I cannot accept that election to the highest office in the land somehow creates a religious transition in which one's faith commitments get trumped by the demands of the office. Surely it cannot be as simple as that. "You shall have no other gods before me" is a pretty non-negotiable religious command.

Instead, I want to know how any presidential candidate who claims to be a religious believer translates that faith commitment into moral convictions and then, by extension, brings such convictions to bear on policy positions.

Romney essentially granted this point when he claimed that Americans have a common core of moral convictions that flow from our various faiths and even from our founding documents. He summarized this core as "the conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life."

For me, personally, this conviction is exactly right. I want to hear how Governor Romney squares that conviction with every policy position he takes, including, for example, his stance on waterboarding, on taxes, on health care, on climate, and on immigration. As an evangelical who cares about such issues, I want a president who is able to see the connections between his policies and the tenderhearted compassion embodied in a human dignity ethic.

We don't need a "political religion" that trumps religious faith. We need a religious faith that humanely informs our laws and our policies.

--David P. Gushee is Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and president of Evangelicals for Human Rights. His most recent book, THE FUTURE OF FAITH IN AMERICAN POLITICS: THE PUBLIC WITNESS OF THE EVANGELICAL CENTER, will be published in January by Baylor University Press.

| Comments (3)


Tag Cloud