« Let’s Remove Big Money From Campaigns
Are Huckabee Backers Push-Polling Against McCain In New Hampshire? »
Candidates Perverting History
On 6 December, Mitt Romney delivered a speech, “Faith in America,” in which he tried to allay certain qualms some may have with his Mormon faith and to lay out his own views on the proper roles of religion and religious expression in American public life. He presented what seemed to me an incorrect and frankly dangerous interpretation of those roles, and trotted out selective readings of our country’s founders to bolster his arguments. And he’s not the only one.
Romney said
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.
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.’
The founders of our nation did not put God on our currency (that didn’t happen until the 1860s), or in our pledge (that was 1954). Their religion was a personal matter, not to be worn on the sleeve, but to be practiced as they saw fit within the context of their own lives (witness Jefferson’s sincere grapplings with his faith, or Franklin’s, or Adams’). They understood the moral underpinnings that can be offered by religious faith, but they did not shove their religion in the faces of others, as so many in America today seem entirely set on doing.
To me, religious faith is one of the most intimate and personal parts of a person’s life, and it seems utterly offensive that Romney felt he had to stand before a crowd and attempt to justify his family’s Mormon beliefs. A candidate’s faith, it’s true, might inform their policy positions or political judgments, but there is a reason that the only mention of religion in the original (unamended) Constitution was this one, in Article VI: “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.”
No religious Test. But can there be any other term for what Romney was attempting to ‘pass’ by giving that speech this month? Or for when all the candidates in a debate are asked whether they believe every word of the Bible is true? Indeed, those aren’t official religious tests, but they’re getting awfully close. My views on the Bible are my own; yours are your own, and certainly we ought to be able to talk about those views and debate what differences exist in a calm, deliberate and rational manner – but I simply don’t believe that questions of personal faith or theological interpretation should be playing such a visible and out-sized role in our presidential politics.
TPM’s Steve Benen brought up another interesting example of current candidates twisting history to suit their own ends recently, noting comments by new Huckabee campaign manager Ed Rollins to Lou Dobbs on Friday. Dobbs asked Rollins “… I have never, perhaps you have, but never in my experience have I seen so many candidates talking about God in a primary campaign and in a general election, I presume and it will remain there. How comfortable are you with that and is it appropriate for god to be in religion and faith to be this prominent in a secular campaign for president?”
Rollins began his response by saying “You go back to the signing of the constitution I think 26 of the people that signed it were ministers. At the beginning of this country, we began with a nation under God …”
Not exactly, on so many levels. J.L. Bell over at Boston 1775 fact-checks Rollins’ statement, finding that of the 36 signers of the Constitution (55 men total were at the Convention, but only 36 signed), only two had ever preached: Abraham Baldwin of Georgia, who served as a chaplain during the Revolution before becoming a lawyer, and Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, who was licensed to preach but taught math instead.
Rollins’ confusion might stem from his boss, who made a similar goof during an October debate. Huckabee, in answering a question about abortion rights, said “When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator, and among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, life being one of them. I still believe that.”
In fact, just one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (there were 56) was an active minister in 1776: John Witherspoon of New Jersey. Several others (3, maybe 4) had preached at various times in the past. Hardly “most” by any measure.
These missteps may be and presumably are entirely innocent, but they serve to perpetuate the myth that Romney, Huckabee and others who envision a much more prominent contemporary role for (Christian) religion in American public life wish to promulgate. If candidates are going to use history to win votes and influence people, they ought to at least get it right.
9 Responses to “Candidates Perverting History”
Apropos of this entry, check out this wonderful, exhaustive review and interview with Rev. Forrest Church, a Unitarian minister whose book “So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Battle over the Separation of Church and State.”
[...] Candidates perverting history [...]
My hope is that for every vote gained by the act of pandering revisionist history, there will also be a vote lost. We’ve seen over the past several years how people can be motivated by playing to their fears, in this case the fear being played to is of religion being under “attack”. How refreshing it would be to see more of these folks capable of being equally motivated by appeals to reason and logic!
I agree 100% with this statement from the article:
“I simply don’t believe that questions of personal faith or theological interpretation should be playing such a visible and out-sized role in our presidential politics.”
Article VI of the US Constitution shows us the founding fathers were clearly of a similar mind on the matter.
I especially hate that bastard Washington for shoving religion down my throat in his inaugural address:
He is even suggesting the Almighty has some special connection to the United States! The fiend!
Hopefully Adams with e beeter:
SONOFA….
Surely Jefferson will be better:
OK..Madison?
Monroe?
Crap. He’s the worst since Washington!! He’s even praying???????!!!!!!!
OK…I’ll stop, since every inaugural address will invoke the almighty. Jeremey you are not entirely wrong…but you wildly overstate the case. Religion was not a purely private matter in the way you mean the term. Religion was pervasive in society. The “private”-ness of religion was more about what could and couldn’t be compelled of individuals in a democratic society. It has nothing of the modern concern with removing the “religious” from public view.
Iconic Midwest – believe it or not, your examples serve to underscore my point exactly. Look at the phrasing they used:
- Almighty Being; Great Author (Washington)
- Being who is supreme over all; Protector (Adams)
- Infinite Power (Jefferson)
- Almighty Being (Madison)
- Almighty (Monroe)
Not “God” as the concept is understood today, not by a long shot.
Yes, religion was present in their society just as it is in ours, and absolutely all the early presidents referenced religion in their inaugural addresses (and Congress has opened its sessions with a prayer, &c. &c.). It’s true that the Framers weren’t concerned about the exact same things we are – that’s because they didn’t have to deal with the presence of “In God We Trust” on the money or nativity scenes on courthouse lawns. They had different issues (fast days, oaths, and the like) to contend with.
Their fights did, however, concern the question of “removing the ‘religious’ from public view” (witness the great uproar when Adams declared an official “fast day” in 1798). Even many religious groups refused to support that action, which probably helped cost Adams reelection in 1800. This example, as you note, also concerns the question of compulsion – which is an important one, and one that has not faded with the centuries.
In a perfect world I certainly and 100% agree with this:
However to the extent that a candidate’s religious views will (or have the potential to) influence the actions that candidate might take as President, then we have every right to know and ask questions about religion. There are some decisions a President will make (and which policies and programs to support) that will more than likely be made based on his religious beliefs.
For instance abortion. The religious right, and from what I can tell most (but not all) Republican leaders oppose abortion. And many of those candidates who oppose abortion will cut funding to family planning clinics and appoint judges to the bench who agree with them. They may even disagree with Roe v. Wade and seek to overturn or otherwise undo it.
However other people (including myself) might oppose abortion but remain pro-choice. So my personal views (at least in this case) would land me on the side of the religious right. But how I would act (being pro-choice and believe in the right to privacy) firmly puts my views on the left. Personally I don’t have all the answers to this question and can only live by my own beliefs. And in order to continue my own freedom to practice my own beliefs, I am going to fight for that freedom for all. But I do not believe I should force my views down others’ throats. This freedom is essential to our country.
So it’s important to understand a candidate’s religious views and how he will balance those views with the competing responsibilities of elected office. Remember the Terry Schiavo case and how the Republican leadership, for their own political benefit, interfered in what is probably the most personal private decision? (The decision to continue or discontinue life support of a family member?) And Bill Frist, even went beyond the religious pandering and used his credentials as a doctor to examine Terry, via video tape, and declare that she was alive and should continue on life support! How can any reputable doctor, when making a life and death decision, base that decision on a videotape?
Anyway, I agree that questions of a personal nature should not play such an outsized role in the presidential selection. But that only assumes the candidates truly will not let their faith influence them. Unfortunately most of the candidates (and how many of them have conveniently switched positions, now that they are running for Prez.?) will allow their religious beliefs to “interfere” with their duties as President.
What absolutely cracks me up about the anti God crowd. Throw God from the train movement is that you look upon the writings of a few flawed and secular men from a couple hundred years ago with awe and reverence. You quote them as Christians quote the Bible.
As these men profess their lack of conviction in God you cling to their writings and try to FORCE upon the masses your beliefs.
You rail against that which you yourself do.
Welcome to the world of hypocrisy.
Many religious people strongly support the full separation of church and state as something necessary to protect us all.
Thanks Holly, it’s always good to see a note of reason enter the god/state confusion fest. I happen to be a person of faith, but when I show support for separation of church and state, suddenly I am referred to as “anti-god”! It’s amazing how willing and ready some folks are to push their own buttons. Here’s another great quote from Thomas Jefferson:
“All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
You tell em Tom!