Accidental Blogger

Many religious people make the mistake of conflating morality with religion when in reality the two are separate things. While religion needs morality as a selling point for its propagation and raison d’être, the converse is not true. (Think Mother Teresa and her tortured life and death) The current crop of holy rollers running for president on the GOP ticket either do not understand the distinction or they cynically exploit the confused prejudices of their devout electorate. Either way, the discourse on the campaign trail has been vitiated by divisive religious pandering and posturing. Candidates must now publicly defend and explain what should be their privately held beliefs. A wholly gratuitous and cloying religious test. See this Newsweek article which rightly describes it as a "holy war" where there seems to be no place for conscientious and morally upright non-believers.  But Huckabee and Mitt Romney are hardly the first politicians to espouse this exclusionary and un-constitutional view. 

For example, here is what senior Bush said during his 1988 presidential campaign.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.

Romney had to come all the way to Texas to deliver his "faith" speech. Not a bad choice. While the US Constitution prohibits a "religious test" as a requirement for public office, the Texas Constitution adds:
"nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledges the existence of a Supreme Being."

But Texas too has its share of non-believers and those who believe in a strict separation of church and state. 3 out of the 4  letters to the editor that appeared in the Houston Chronicle after Romney’s speech were critical of elected officials dragging their personal faith into politics. (The fourth letter was from a local Methodist minister. It too was critical of Romney but for different reasons. The minister didn’t trust the Mormon faith!)  I am copying the letters from the three Texas citizens who see danger in mixing religion and public policy. 

Columnist Rick Casey offered an excellent history and comparative analysis of the John F. Kennedy and Mitt Romney speeches on religion.  From all reports, Romney delivered a well-crafted speech to what was a receptive audience. Only time will tell if it helps propel him to the presidency.

Personally, though, I prefer the "Kennedy Doctrine" of church and state — and not just because it was briefer. The irony is that if Kennedy’s speech, alluding to a wall of separation that is "absolute," were to be given today, he would be denounced by evangelical Protestants and many of his fellow Catholics.

The Constitution may expressly forbid any religious test for public office, but in reality a de facto Christian litmus test is alive and well among millions of voters. This development is a sad commentary on the current state of religious freedom in America.

TOM BROWNFIELD
Nassau Bay

Krauthammer hits it

Rather than elevating the discussion, Mitt Romney’s confession of faith merely panders to the worst sanctimonious instincts of a particularly vocal segment of our republic. I rarely agree with columnist Charles Krauthammer. Friday was one exception. His assessment of Romney is spot on, as is his inclusion of Huckabee in his analysis of the callous genuflection to our own religious fascists.

The comparison with Jack Kennedy is notable for its contrasts. JFK spoke before a hostile audience and resolutely took religion off the table in the political debate of competence for public office, as had our Founding Fathers. Romney spoke before friends and merely identified himself as not the wrong kind of Christian. That he then dismisses other faiths by admiring their more superficial characteristics, betrays either an ignorance or a lack of interest in those faiths.

IRA J. BLACK
Houston

Slander of secular

It was interesting to read Mitt Romney’s speech in the online Chronicle Friday. He made a spirited defense of how his Mormonism should not disqualify him from the presidency, and he speaks about how "it’s important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions." While this sounds logical on the surface, in actuality it is palpable nonsense.

The various religions have vast differences in moral convictions, as any quick scan of holy books will tell you. While it is true that people can, for good or evil, fit their own moral beliefs into a religious framework, this completely masks the horrible slander that Romney makes against good people with no religion or, as he oxymoronically calls it, "the religion of secularism." He implies that morality comes from some church, thus, those who have no religion are immoral. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Atheists and agnostics are a significant, if relatively quiet segment of our democracy, but they are no less committed to America, to freedom, justice and, yes, morality, than those who adhere to a faith. Secular people do not wish to see reli-gion removed from the public. They wish to see religion removed from government because, as Romney vividly illustrates, it seems impossible for him or Huckabee to respect secularism.

DAVE RICCI
Houston

The Economist has an interesting story on American voters who profess no organized religious faith.