Huckabee: the real Christian candidate

I've been commenting on Mitt Romney's campaign and his religion speech. But it seems that while Romney is trying to reassure voters that he's OK even though he's Mormon because he's a true religious and social conservative, Huckabee seems to be running as the "real" Christian candidate. I've been following recent media coverage of him and it's been really interesting (and troubling).

I still don't know a lot about him, but I think he's surprised a lot of analysts with his recent success in polls and he appears to be a real possibility for the GOP nomination. First, an interesting article at the Washington Post explores how Huckabee has his critics and fans on both the right and the left and how he's has never been afraid of letting his religion show through. From the article:

When the idea for a proclamation declaring Christian Heritage Week came up in 1994, Jim Guy Tucker, the Democratic governor of Arkansas, would not sign it. His aides said he did not think it was appropriate to honor a particular faith.

But when Tucker went out of town for a week and Republican Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee became the acting chief executive, the Baptist minister enthusiastically signed the proclamation, declaring at a later celebration that he was taking a stand against "Christophobia."

"It's a new word. I just made it up," Huckabee said, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. "Some people talk about homophobia; I've been hearing Christophobia."

Other executives have signed similar proclamations, but in Huckabee's case his aggressive, in-your-face efforts for the symbolic cause exemplify the central role his religious beliefs played in setting policy in Arkansas, first as lieutenant governor and then as governor.

The article goes on the explain how Huckabee has been particularly consistent as an opponent of abortion, and how he started his political career as an anti-abortionist. But then the article points out how he's taken very liberal stands on issues like the death penalty and guaranteeing health insurance for children. A recent TNR article points out how Huckabee is at odds with some parts of the traditional GOP platform and the party's economic conservatives.

But it's the flaunting of his Christianity that concerns some people, including myself. In a strong article at The Nation, John Nichols had this to say:

Unspoken by Romney--or most analysts of the Huckabee surge in Iowa, South Carolina and national polls, which now place him second only to Rudy Giuliani--is a key to the preacher's progress: an embrace of precisely the sort of religious test America's founders sought to guard against. It's not just that Huckabee is a confirmed creationist whose policy pronouncements would make Pat Robertson blush (he describes homosexuality as a sin, "just as lying is sinful and stealing is sinful," and condemns both same-sex marriage and divorce). The fact is, Huckabee and his backers have an ugly tendency to question the faith of their foes. When Fred Thompson's campaign criticized him on a Sunday, Huckabee surrounded himself with ministers and chirped, "Most of us were in church. He was cranking out press releases."

But Thompson and Brownback got off easy compared with Romney, who has long been in the cross hairs of the Huckabee campaign, which runs ads identifying its candidate as "a Christian leader." Huckabee avoids explicit pokes at Romney's faith while asking provocative questions about Mormonism, rarely distancing himself from backers who suggest that evangelicals could do better than to vote for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Huckabee's Iowa supporters openly suggest at campaign events that Romney's "going to be acting on an anti-Christian faith as the basis of his decision-making." The Arkansan's Iowa campaign co-chair, Daniel Carroll, says Christians prefer his man over Romney because Huckabee "prays to the God of the Bible." Huckabee simply suggests that God prefers him. After being introduced in late November by Jerry Falwell Jr. as a candidate who "believes like we do," Huckabee told a crowd at Falwell's Liberty University, "There's only one explanation for [my surge], and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."

In the GOP race, it's not Romney's Mormonism that poses a threat to the core values of a secular nation. It is the messianic candidacy of Mike Huckabee, which seeks to apply the "religious test" for government service, a test the founders feared would be the undoing of the American experiment.

Recent talk about Huckabee has been focused on his controversial TV ad "What Really Matters." "Silent Night" is sweetly played in the background and a Christmas tree is visible. He urges viewers to pause to remember that what really matters at Christmas is remembering the birth of Christ and being with our families. A well-lit white bookshelf or something in the background bears a strong resemblance to a cross as the camera pans. John Nichols had this to say:

Of course it's a cross in the background of that new Mike Huckabee for President commercial running amidst the Christmas sale ads on Iowa television screens.

It is, in fact, a great big shining cross. And it is hovering over the evangelical candidate's shoulder in the most blatantly religious campaign advertisement ever aired by a serious contender -- and the polls confirm that Huckabee is indeed a very serious contender -- for the presidential nomination of a major party.

Despite the suggestion by some that Huckabee's "Merry Christmas" ad simply features a convenient window-pane pattern next to that decorated tree, no one who is familiar with Huckabee's penchant for playing the religion card doubts that the former Arkansas governor who says that there is a Biblical explanation for his rise in the polls is positioning himself as the candidate for the cross.

Huckabee had this to say about the ad:

If I had used the name of Jesus Christ in vain, and blurted it out as profanity, no one would be talking about it. Nobody. It would simply get ignored and accepted as the way we talk these days. But because I invoked his name on his own birthday, to say to America, 'Happy birthday, merry Christmas,' somehow everybody sees in it something that isn't even there. Have we so lost our national soul? Have we become so coarse that even the attempt to bring some civility to the political arena is met with nothing more than scorn, disdain, and disbelief?

I don't have a problem with Huckabee placing the birth of Christ at the center of his Christmas celebration, nor do I have a problem with millions of other Americans doing so. But there's something so fishy about this ad. It may be the most overtly religious ad ever by a serious presidential candidate. It bothers me for a couple reasons. First, he's using his faith to sell himself as the best candidate. That's what the whole "no religious test" thing is supposed to protect against, isn't it? It diverts attention away from real issues that affect real people in the U.S. and around the world. There's no doubt that people would vote for Huckabee solely on the basis that he's an evangelical Christian. Second, he's using the whole "religion is under attack" thing, by which he really means "Christianity is under attack." Just like that "Christian Heritage Week" thing he signed when he was the Lt. Governor, citing "Christophobia" as his motivation. But this kind of strategy just won't ever do us any good in a real pluralistic society. America is made up of more than just Christians. And Christianity should never be used as a political tool to get votes and form policy. When Huckabee (and Romney) express concern that religion is getting kicked out the public sphere, they really mean Christianity. I've said before that I think there's a role for religion in the public sphere, and even in politics. But it shouldn't favor one religion over others. If Huckabee insists that Christianity needs to be afforded a place on the campaign trail and in the Capital building, then so does Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other religious perspectives, as well as the views of those who choose not to believe.

A little movie called "Once"

Last night my wife and I watched a movie called Once. It has collected a whopping score of "98% fresh" at the movie review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. Shot for a mere $160,000, the film has definitely surpassed its own expectations and made a considerable amount of money despite its limited release. I expect it will do better now that it's on DVD and word is spreading. Filmed last year in Dublin, Once could be considered a musical film and naturalistic drama. It has an almost documentary feel. It's about a man who fixes vacuums with his dad by day and plays music on the street by night. He writes his own songs set to acoustic guitar and has aspirations of becoming a professional musician someday. He meets a Czech immigrant and amateur musician that stops to listen to his music on the street. After an awkward beginning, a friendship develops between the two and they eventually collaborate on some music that they record in a studio for him to take to London to get his music career going. Both have painful relationships in their past, and it seems for a time that the pair is bound to get romantically involved. But, this film does not follow the usual "recipe" for a romantic comedy/musical. And that's precisely why I love it.

Once is exactly what I love about independent films that don't follow conventional Hollywood formulas and don't rely on huge budgets and huger names to be successful. The film is certainly not ambitious - it's somewhat light on plot and doesn't tackle any big issues or themes. But, it draws you in completely for so many reasons. The music, actually written by primarily the lead actor but also by the lead actress (who are not professional actors, by the way), is fantastic. Simple but passionate and chilling. I guess you'd have to consider the movie a musical, but it is in so many ways different from a typical musical. This musical is the kind that actually goes on in real musicians' lives as their music permeates every aspect of their lives. Rather than suddenly burst into song, the characters in this film are writing, sharing, and recording their music together in a natural way.

Near the end of the movie, my wife turned to me and said: "I keep waiting for something bad to happen." We all know what she means. Two people fall in love, something bad happens (usually a big misunderstanding or an argument or a brief bout of infidelity), and then magically at the end of the film they get together (it usually involves a wedding). It's the formula, right? Good films don't insult your intelligence and your taste by cramming a cheese-ball formula down your throat. They have a degree of unpredictability to them. Often, they are left somewhat open-ended. Many of the recent high-quality and mostly independent films I've seen really fit this description. I appreciate the realism, the grittiness, and the ability to find beauty and significance in everyday people and events.

Of course, sci-fi is one of my favorite film genres, and many sci-fi films don't even pretend to be remotely realistic, natural, or plausible. I think I can handle an element of escapism in sci-fi films for this reason. They're not pretending to be real life. Having said that, though, some of the best sci-fi films do have a certain amount of grittiness and even plausibility to them - that's what makes some of them so haunting. Blade Runner would fit this description. Sometimes I get tired of sci-fi films that are all about technology and shiny ships and guns. I can handle it to an extent, but I like films that approach sci-fi in a more creative way. Serenity has become one of my favorite sci-fi films for this reason. It's a sci-fi film with some Western elements in it, sometimes called a "space western."

Anyway, I highly recommend the film. It just came out on video yesterday.

Blaming religion

How much can we blame religion for historical tragedies? For modern social problems? For anything? It certainly gets done a lot. I always like to read the online comments on news articles covering religion. True, they are not very representative, I suppose. But it's interesting to hear what people think about religion. A good deal of the comments are pretty harsh, particularly on more liberal news websites. Bashing religion can be profitable, too, not just something people do for fun online or in conversation. Recent books by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are proof of that.

Yet, when I consider typical arguments, I find that they really have problems. They tend to be oversimplistic and highly selective in what aspects of religion they discuss (bash) Furthermore, they seem to have at least two major issues:

First, since until fairly recent in history, religion has been closely intertwined with other institutions, including government, any claim that religion has been the source of evildoing, injustice, or cruelty tends to confound religion with the institutions it has been associated with. Was it religion or was it the societal institutions and social actors that worked in its name or in conjunction with it? A lot of the past evils in human history are associated with religion because religion has generally been associated with about everything in human history.

Second, religious individuals, groups, institutions, and organizations sometimes, and by necessity, act in non-religious ways and with non-religious motives. As a sociologist of religion, this is really easy to see. Religious actors and religious institutions are human, just like any other actor or institution. They function in a world with concerns, demands, problems, and interests that are faced every other type of actor or institution. I guess my point is that not everything a religious individual or institution does is religious.

Don't get me wrong - I believe that religion can be used for evil, just as it can be used for good. I believe that a lot of evil has been done in the name of religion. My point is just that the reality is more complicated than what some people would have you believe.

I think what makes religion so powerful is that it provides a given social structure or ideology with divine legitimacy. Religion relies on this legitimacy. This puts it beyond criticism or questioning. It also provides people with a deep sense of purpose and urgency. This can be used for good or ill.

Like a true religious liberal, I'm not ready throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. I see so much good in religion. For the reasons I discuss above, I think oversimplistic religion-bashing is misguided and inaccurate. Religion, I believe, reflects collective attempts at making meaning of our lives and giving them beauty and purpose.

Pew Political Typology Test: Yep, I'm liberal

The Pew Research Center for the People & and the Press has a neat Political Typology test you can take on their website. It only takes a few minutes to take. If you take it, come back here and tell me what you are and what you think about the typology. Here's an explanation of what it's based on and how it works:

The Political Typology is a longstanding effort to sort voters into homogeneous groups based on their values, political beliefs and party affiliation. The current report is based on a two-part survey of 2,000 Americans interviewed in December 2004, most of whom were recontacted to follow up on current political issues in March 2005. The new analysis divides the American public into nine distinct groups, each with their own unique outlook on politics and the issues of the day. This is the fourth Political Typology study, following previous studies in 1987, 1994 and 1999.

Contrary to the widespread impression of a nation only divided into two unified “red” and “blue” camps, our latest survey finds important cleavages on values and basic attitudes within each party. As a result, both parties face internal challenges as well as opportunities to expand their constituencies. While Republicans have made strong and election-determining inroads among independents, divisions over social and domestic issues may make it difficult for them to consolidate and build upon that advantage. Democrats, however, must deal with a more diverse constituency that is sharply divided on social and cultural values.

The typology is composed of nine groups:

1. Enterprisers
2. Social Conservatives
3. Pro-Government Conservatives
4. Upbeats
5. Disaffecteds
6. Conservative Democrats
7. Disadvantaged Democrats
8. Liberals
9. Bystanders

The typology is so interesting because it identifies different types of Republicans and Democrats and different patterns and of beliefs and values. You can look at the website for more information about each of the groups. One of the things the report points out is that Republicans are split about the role of the government and Democrats are split on social and personal values.

I took the test. No surprises here, I was a liberal. This is what it said about liberals:

Liberal

Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Liberal typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.

Liberals represent 17 percent of the American public, and 19 percent of registered voters.

Basic Description
This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999, Liberals now comprise the largest share of Democrats and is the single largest of the nine Typology groups. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration, issues which are more controversial among Conservative and Disadvantaged Democrats.

Defining Values
Strongest preference for diplomacy over use of military force. Pro-choice, supportive of gay marriage and strongly favor environmental protection. Low participation in religious activities. Most sympathetic of any group to immigrants as well as labor unions, and most opposed to the anti-terrorism Patriot Act.

Who They Are
Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal. Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000).

Lifestyle Notes
Largest group to have been born (or whose parents were born) outside of the U.S. or Canada (20%). Least likely to report having a gun at home (23%) or attending bible study or prayer group meetings (13%).

2004 Election
Bush 2%, Kerry 81%

Party ID
59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)

Media Use
Liberals are second only to Enterprisers in following news about government and public affairs most of the time (60%). Liberals’ use of the internet to get news is the highest among all groups (37%).

Media/blog reactions to Romney's speech

In the hours and days following Romney's religion speech I anxiously followed what journalists and bloggers had to say about it. I came across a lot of interesting things.

One of the best reactions I read was an editorial at The New York Times. Here are some excerpts:

Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

We believe democracy cannot exist without separation of church and state, not that public displays of faith are anathema. We believe, as did the founding fathers, that no specific religion should be elevated above all others by the government.

The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific declarations of religious belief (like Mr. Romney saying he believes Jesus was the son of God) is a step toward imposing that belief on all Americans. That is why they wrote in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.

At The New Republic, David Kusnet offered the following:

As Kennedy would have reminded today's Americans, Mitt Romney should be judged on his public record and should not subject himself to the indignity of denying that his religion is racist, unbiblical, or unchristian. Yes, candidates have every right to explain how they would promote the common good--and to tell how their deepest beliefs are derived from their religious faiths. But suggesting that one religion is better than another--or even, as Romney did, that testifying to one's faith is preferable to keeping it private--ventures where our nation's founders feared to go.

Why then did Romney deliver a speech that described some but not all of his most personal beliefs and defended the role of religion in public life without specifying where, how, or by whom it is being threatened? The answer, simply, is that Romney wants to stand on several sides of the church/state debates of the past half century. He campaigns as a religious conservative, but rejects attacks on his own religious beliefs by citing the religious tolerance that is the legacy of liberals like John F. Kennedy. Then he attacks a nameless "some" who threaten the role of religion in public life. Are they the churchgoing presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards? Or perhaps they're the oft-divorced Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain? So, in Romney's conception, what is fair game? Which questions about personal beliefs (and personal behavior) can presidential candidates legitimately be asked? There were no answers to be found in Thursday's speech.

Mitt Romney, you're no Jack Kennedy.

At the Daily Kos, there was a neat comparison of the speech to JFK's famous speech. Here are some of the high points:

In contrast (to Kennedy's speech), Romney's speech is quite different in both tone and content. Romney elevates religious belief over any issue facing the nation and appears to make faith a prerequisite to leadership. In fact, he seems to be elevating religious belief itself to a requirement, a note he strikes again later in the speech. Even in the list of issues before the country, Romney's list is heavily skewed to religious topics. His foreign enemy is not a nation, or terrorist, or even Islamists, but "Radical violent Islam," which would certainly seem to exclude American Muslims from his ideas of "religious liberty." There's no mention of the problems of poverty or the lack of health care. Instead, there's a pitch against social programs in the form of "government overspending" and against gay marriage under the guise of "the breakdown of the family." For Romney, not only is religion the most important issue, but the other issues are issues of religion.

And:

This theme, played out in one discordant note after another through the remainder of Romney's speech, is perhaps the least tolerant expression uttered by anyone this side of Bill O'Reilly, certainly by anyone running for president. In Romney's speech, America isn't just a country where a number of religious people live, it's a country that is required to be religious.

Blogger Chris Walton had this to say:

What he admires about other religions — and, by extension, what he seems to be saying deserves toleration — is conservative traditionalism. But millions of Americans, and not simply atheists and "seculars," are excluded by this definition. Romney isn't defending religious pluralism; he's defending conservatism.

What else might he have admired about America's religious communities? How about (among many other things) the tradition of charitable and social justice work of Catholic religious orders and lay volunteers, the Episcopalians' glorification of God through beauty and education, the conscientious peacemaking of the Anabaptists and Quakers, the teaching zeal of the Presbyterians, the modernizing impulse of Reform Judaism that brought Jews into the mainstream, the independence of mind and adaptability of the Unitarian Universalists, the mindfulness of the Buddhists, the visual parables of the Eastern Orthodox and the Hindus, the veneration of the land by its native peoples, and the inventiveness of new religious movements?

And why not acknowledge that many people are upright, honorable, and moral without subscribing to any creed or system of religion? I pity Romney if he has never had the good fortune to meet a trustworthy and ethical atheist.

By trying to define "faith" as conservative traditionalism and "pluralism" as a name for monotheistic traditionalism, Romney misrepresented the true diversity of American religion, explicitly dismissed Americans who don't identify with a religious tradition, and painted the traditions he did mention in a way that celebrates their most traditionalist wings and ignores almost all of their visions for the commonweal. What a disappointment.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are a lot more interesting responses I found, but I'll leave it at that. I also scanned some conservative blogs/websites for reactions. Most of what I read at the National Review Online was positive reaction to his speech, though the general feeling I got from their writers is that they're a bit annoyed that his religion is such a big deal and that he had to give the speech at all. I don't think many of the NRO writers are members of the far Religious Right. But what I didn't see at the NRO was any concern about the most alarming things in his speech: his attempt at both denying and fulfilling a religious test for office, his suggestion that freedom and morality are dependent on religion, his complete adherence to the myths of a Christian Nation and a nation under attack by secularists and Islamic extremists, his conflation of religion and conservatism, and his complete omission of the fact that religious freedom includes the freedom to not believe, and that these Americans, too, can be moral, trustworthy, and patriotic.

It will be interesting to see how his speech affects his campaign, if at all. I've seen survey data suggesting that there are a good deal of Americans who don't even know he's Mormon. Some analysts feared this speech would only bring attention to that. There's no denying that this speech had one purpose only: to persuade evangelicals that he's OK to support. In doing so, he certainly alienated any secular voters, as well as many non-Christians or liberal Christians that may have been paying attention.

Thoughts on Mitt's religion speech: He's no JFK

That seems pretty safe to say after reading Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech yesterday. In a speech that will inevitably be compared to the one delivered by a Catholic candidate many years ago, he definitely proved that the role of religion in politics has changed since then. JFK boldly stated: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." End of story. Mitt's message was a bit more mixed, to say the least. You can see the entire transcript of his speech here. I've been thinking about Romney's speech quite a bit since I first read it yesterday and began to see what folks in the media on both sides were saying. My next post will cover some media reaction to his speech.

At times I felt like could agree with him, but it was so obvious that it was calculated for a single purpose - to persuade evangelical Christian voters that he's their kind of guy. That's where he lost me - and where I started to get worried.

Mitt wanted it both ways. He wanted to point out that no religious test is required for office while also demonstrating that there is in fact a religious test if you're a Republican, and that he could pass it with flying colors. At one point he argued:

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.

And:

A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Yet elsewhere he showed that the speech was in fact an effort to pass a religious test:

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

Among those questions that he answered was his statement of faith in Jesus Christ as "the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."

Extolling the virtue and wisdom of separation of church and state, he threw in a tired, Religious Right argument for good measure:

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's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

It's odd that he chose the word "religion" even while rebuking the nameless, arguably imaginary enemy bent on seeing the end of religion in our country.

For all his praise of religious diversity and religious freedom, he only lent support to the other tired and worn out idea of the both the media and the Religious Right: that religiosity is synonymous with patriotism and conservatism and that secular Americans are not to be trusted. Nowhere in his "praise" of religious freedom did he ever mention that one has freedom in this country to not be religious at all, and that that is what makes our country so great. It's to deny that atheists and agnostics can be moral, responsible, active members of society and contributors to our nation. Consider this paragraph from his speech:

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

And:

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.

While I agree wholeheartedly that "freedom opens the windows of the soul," freedom is in fact not dependent on religion. Also, are those that are not religious, or perhaps more importantly, not religious in his way (i.e., mainline Protestants, liberal Christians, non-Christians, and others) not his friend and ally? That's what he seems to suggest, and by doing so he does America a disservice and only works to create the perception that the only legitimate expressions of religion are conservative, and that secular Americans have such a radical view of America that they have no business participating in the conversation. These are, of course, myths, so it's clear that Romney has really completely bought into the Religious Right's talking points.

Two of his major points were that 1) religious Americans don't need to agree on doctrine in order to have shared values and 2) that while recognizing that separation of church and state is important he will strive to not separate our country and its government from God. These are essentially his way of trying to persuade religious conservatives that he's OK to elect. This passage was a bit troubling to me:

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust. 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. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

He failed to mention that including God on currency and in the pledge were in fact not the handiwork of the founders, but instituted in the 1950s at the height of McCarthyism, and that it is clear that the constitution does is fact not rest on a "foundation of faith." It is a secular document for a secular government. He also fails to mention that secular, Deist, and religious founders all agreed on this and saw that it was in the best interest of both church and state.

This is what many of our American religious conservative brothers and sisters don't understand. When "secular progressives" (one of Bill O'Reilly's favorite groups to talk about), liberals, libertarians, and even many conservatives (historically Baptists, but maybe not as much as they used to) call for absolute separation of church and state, it is not a blow to religion in our country. It is not relegating religion and religious people to second-class status. It is meant to ensure that religion and irreligion are equally protected and that no candidate has an advantage or disadvantage because of his or her faith. It is to ensure the vibrancy and health of both religion and government. If we were once were a Christian nation, which is debatable, we are now a nation of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, atheists, agnostics, "spiritual but not religious" Americans, and many others. It does us all a great disservice not to recognize that, and it is to ignore the real nature of the constitution and the first Amendment.

While on the surface Mitt Romney tried to praise religious diversity and religious freedom, his speech had one purpose only: to persuade the important conservative religious Republican base that it's OK to vote for him.

Make Our Garden Grow

When I was in high school we sang "Make Our Garden Grow" from Leonard Bernstein's operetta Candide. It is a thrilling piece of music to sing. Anyway, I forgot about it for a long time, then recently came across it on iTunes and bought it. Today I found an incredible recording of it on YouTube. In this 1989 recording, Leonard Berstein is conducting a performance of just the music, not the whole operetta.



In case you don't know, Bernstein's operetta is based on a classic satire by the Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire. I've never actually read it. Apparently, he pokes fun at just about everything, including philosophy, religion, and literature of his time. I guess it's pretty humorous.

Here are the words to "Make Our Garden Grow":

CANDIDE
You've been a fool
And so have I,
But come and be my wife.
And let us try,
Before we die,
To make some sense of life.
We're neither pure, nor wise, nor good
We'll do the best we know.
We'll build our house and chop our wood
And make our garden grow...
And make our garden grow.

CUNEGONDE
I thought the world
Was sugar cake
For so our master said.
But, now I'll teach
My hands to bake
Our loaf of daily bread.

CANDIDE AND CUNEGONDE
We're neither pure, nor wise, nor good
We'll do the best we know.
We'll build our house and chop our wood
And make our garden grow...
And make our garden grow.


CANDIDE, CUNEGONDE, MAXIMILLIAN, PAQUETTE, OLD LADY, DR. PANGLOSS
Let dreamers dream
What worlds they please
Those Edens can't be found.
The sweetest flowers,
The fairest trees
Are grown in solid ground.

ENSEMBLE (a cappella)
We're neither pure, nor wise, nor good
We'll do the best we know.
We'll build our house and chop our wood
And make our garden grow.
And make our garden grow!

The music is absolutely amazing. I get chills every time I hear it. I guess Bernstein's original operetta, which debuted in 1956, didn't do very well on Broadway. Some people thought is was too serious an adaptation of Voltaire's work. But the music was really popular and a cast recording was made. When the operetta was given a new libretto seventeen years later it did much better on stage, apparently.

The words to "Make Our Garden Grow" strike me as rather humanistic. Particularly moving is the suggestion that dreaming about other worlds and "Edens" is fruitless because "the sweetest flowers" and "the fairest trees" are "grown in solid ground." The overall message to me is: this is our world and our life, let's do the best that we can to make them beautiful. The title phrase "make our garden grow" suggests that the responsibility lies with us to beautify and enrich our lives and our planet. Yeah, we're not perfect, but we can try to do some good. It's awesome.

Iraq Veterans Against the War

I recently came across the Iraq Veterans Against the War website. I was moved deeply by the website and really respect those veterans for what they're doing. That's got to be tough. IVAW "was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004 at the annual convention of Veterans for Peace (VFP) in Boston to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent." IVAW's main purpose appears to be educating the public about the war and the realities of military service. It also provides support to conscientious objectors and those facing prosecution for their refusal to fight.

On their website they offer ten reasons why they oppose the war. I found it really interesting and informative. There's also a really moving story about Mark Wilkerson, a Coloradan who went AWOL after his first tour in Iraq, right before he was supposed to report for his second. It was fascinating and disturbing to hear firsthand about what the war is like and how frustrating it can be for American troops who, in the process of trying to figure out who is the enemy, can sometimes pick the wrong ones or even make new ones.

I really admire these veterans for speaking out. That can't be easy in a culture that might see these veterans as unpatriotic wimps or cowards. Some of them have even faced military prosecution. I admire all our men and women in the military, but I'm especially moved by these courageous critics of the war.

It's always been hard for me to wrap my head around war. It's so incredibly awful and horrific that it's almost too hard to grasp. I think the conventional wisdom that generally gets passed down to each successive generation is that the wars we've been involved with as a nation have been necessary evils. But it was this one that really got me thinking. I felt uneasy when I heard Bush calling for a "pre-emptive" war on Iraq that we needed in order to protect ourselves and promote democracy and peace in that region. Over the last few years, though, my feelings about it have really crystallized and strengthened. I'm really disturbed by the path this war set us on as a nation. I'm disturbed that we have the arrogance to go it alone on things like Iraq, with no regard for how other countries perceive our actions, especially our allies. I'm disturbed by the poor intelligence and/or deception that convinced most Americans that Iraq did pose an immediate threat. I'm disturbed by the unfathomable cost in human lives and resources.

I've been trying to figure out where I stand on war in general, and on the what the role of the U.S. should be in the world and in international conflict. I have mixed feelings. I think war should be the absolute last resort, and should be used only to defend against immediate threat and to protect the defenseless. The Republican presidential candidates seem bent on more of the same that we've gotten from this President, and that scares me. I strongly believe that we need to give up our role as international bully and lone superpower. I wish we could be merely a nation among nations - maybe a leader, but a more humble, cooperative leader.

Even the recent report that Iran stopped its nuclear program several years ago didn't keep Bush from keeping to the same line about how Iran is still a major threat. It's scary.

My "Mitt" moment

Given my Mormon background and my interest in religion and politics, I feel like I ought to chime in on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. I try to follow media coverage of his campaign, especially when it comes to his Mormonism. I've been compiling an interesting list of articles on Romney and Mormonism. In this post I plan to share some of the them along with my thoughts.

An article in The New York Times by David Kirkpatrick examined Romney's years as a missionary in France and then a student at the conservative, church-owned Brigham Young University in the 1960s. Kirkpatrick suggests that the social upheaval and events of that era happened at a critical time in Romney's development as a person, and that his Mormonism served as a filter through which those events were interpreted. In many ways, being a missionary and then student at BYU kind of served as a buffer against those events, and prevented him from participating in them. They probably helped solidify his identity as a conservative (though as a MA governor he seemed to be less conservative than he is now, didn't he?)

An article at The New Republic examines opposition to Romney among Mormons. It suggests that many Mormons are turned off by Mitt's attempts to downplay differences between evangelicals and Mormons and his tendency to speak critically of aspects of Mormon history. Many Mormons see this as political maneuvering and "selling out." They believe that in the long run it will only do more harm than good for Mormonism.

Another article at The New Republic argued that it's unfortunate that Romney's religion could keep him from getting elected. Jonathan Chait, while personally opposed to the prospect of Mitt being President, believes that opposition to Romney based in his religion is a step backward for our country. He argues that it was the secular nature of American politics that allowed JFK to get elected (he has a good point, but I think it also has to do with the different positions of Catholicism and Mormonism in America, particularly when it comes to public opinion and numerical strength). Two other great points he makes: 1) "Secular political discourse does not place religious voters or candidates at a disadvantage. It merely denies them an advantage." 2) "Political secularism--the notion that elections should not be contested on the basis of candidates' religiosity--is at a modern nadir."

Finally, I just found out that Romney is going to give a religion speech this Thursday. According to a statement from his campaign spokesman:

Governor Romney has made a decision to deliver a speech titled “Faith in America.”

The governor has been invited to The George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas to deliver this address on Thursday, December 6.

This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected.

Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.”

Governor Romney personally made the decision to deliver this speech sometime last week.

While identifying a venue for this address, the campaign consulted with President George H.W. Bush’s office last week about Governor Romney’s decision. President Bush was gracious enough to extend an invitation to deliver the speech at the presidential library.

The invitation to speak at the presidential library is not an endorsement of Governor Romney’s campaign.

Undoubtedly, this speech will draw innumerable comparisons to JFK's famous speech. Noam Scheiber at The New Republic says he thinks this is a bad idea for Mitt. He says it will just draw negative attention to his religion which will end up hurting him since many early primary voters probably don't know much about it or don't care. I don't know whether I agree with him - survey data suggests that a lot of people have serious reservations about him because of his faith. At any rate, I look forward to seeing what he has to say. Undoubtedly, he will talk little of Mormonism, other than to attempt to minimize differences between Mormonism and Protestantism, particularly conservative Protestantism. He'll talk about the importance of religious tolerance and pluralism, but will try to affirm the "Judeo-Christian" heritage of our country and his desire to uphold that.

To be honest, I don't know much about Romney. I've followed his campaign a little. I've listened to him speak a few times on TV or internet. I'm always a bit surprised when I think about he was governor in liberal Massachusetts. Personally, I'm with Jonathan Chait on Mitt. I don't think his religion should be an issue. There are plenty of other things to disagree with him about, and it has nothing to do with Mormonism. He has pledged support for overturning Roe v. Wade and seeing a constitutional amendment passed to define marriage between a man and woman. He panders to evangelical voters. He has tried to portray himself as the most socially conservative candidate. He supports increasing the size of our military and maintaining high troop levels in Iraq. He has no good plan for universal health care. He tried to outdo Rudy in a recent debate about who was meaner about immigration. I couldn't disagree with him more on these issues.

But, he continues to intrigue me because of the prospect of having a Mormon in the White House. That's almost hard to comprehend, as someone from a Mormon background. I'm eager to see how things play out.