So What if Mitt Wants A Person of Faith as President?
There's a bit of a furor that Mitt Romney declared:
We need to have a person of fiath lead the country.
So what? I disagree with the statement, but it's no different in kind from someone saying they support Obama because they think we need a person of color as President, or saying they support Clinton because it's high time a woman was President. There's no violation of the Constitution for VOTERS to vote their religious beliefs, just as ethnic and racial solidarity has been common in elections without violating the 14th Amendment.
And at some level, why shouldn't a person's religious beliefs be relevant?
Atrios raises the adsurdum fear that we'll be asking whether a person is a "a member of the Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915", but that's actually more relevant than the vague question of whether they are a "Christian." Folks who share a denomination, especially if it's a tightly knit community, do share a host of values that are often relevant to how they will act in a range of policy areas.
I'll freely admit that if someone is a United Church of Christ member, I generally will trust their likely public policy instincts more than if they are a Mormon or a traditional Southern Baptist, as opposed to the more liberal Baptist denominations which I trust more. And I have a certain degree of comfort with Catholic politicians who are generally more pro-labor than non-Catholic politicians.
Now, polls show a tremendous bias against atheists. Some of this is just religious bias but another part is this is: if a politician is atheist, what does does that really tell you about what they believe? Not actually a lot. Ayn Rand was an atheist, as was Karl Marx, and I think part of the bias against athetists is that people just then lack a short-hand sense of what the politician's belief system is grounded in.
The challenge for any atheistic politician is to clearly annunicate what their belief system is and the likely policies that will flow from that belief system. It's a tough challenge in a 90% Christian country that understands and is comfortable with the variations of Christian belief-- and will even throw in the Jews occasionally into that comfort zone -- but just doesn't have a short-hand heuristic when you leave that comfort zone. Which is why most politicians retreat to the "person of faith" mantra since it evokes that comfort level for voters.
It sure doesn't end the debate over beliefs, as Obama's Church of Christ anti-poverty rhetoric wars with radical Christian Right rhetoric, but it's a field of debate that many voters are just more comfortable with.
I think it's a profound mistake for atheists to demand that such religious debates be taken out of the public sphere, since they will never be taken out of voters' minds. Instead, us progressive atheists should be engaging in that faith-based discussion more vigorously, laying out our belief systems and helping make voters comfortable with our viewpoint as part of the menu of "religious" options, not in order to convert them but just to integrate it into the terrain of debate that people are more familiar with.
Otherwise, atheism will just remain the unspoken Other, which voters will inherently (and rightly) distrust because they just won't know what it means personally to the politician involved. So I'm all for a religion in public life debate -- and I'm prepared to argue for why progressive atheism leads to the kinds of public policy voters should want. But if we don't make the case, we can't expect Christian voters to want anything other than what they are familiar with.
Of course we have to be accepting of religious angles to politics (even if it feels like indulging UFO enthusiasts).
It would be OK to have a person of faith in the White House, and it is also OK to pin that person down, before voting, on what allegiance he or she would have. Just as Kennedy was constrained to affirm he would not place the Pope before the country, I would prefer to hear Romney or anybody affirm they would follow the voters' consensus before their personal belief. In any fast-developing situation I would hope they make decisions based on expert advice, not the Bible.
It should easy for an atheist to affirm his ethical system, but he must be brave enough to assert that it is based on his evolved social sense, not some vague hand-waving like "Judeo-Christian tradition", which explains nothing, and is only a weakened religiosity.
February 18, 2007 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truly bad analogy to Clinton and Obama. First, neither is claiming that the world owes them a favor as a woman and a black. Obama explicitly denies it. Supporters may well think it's long due that a woman or a black become president, but even they rarely say that means you have to vote for one of those two.
Second, if it's long due, it's because there's a long history of exclusion. I haven't noticed a shortage of believers as president requiring affirmative action. This is as grotesque as O'Reilly's myth of the war on Christmas.
Third, while I certainly won't vote for a candidate on this ground, there's a plausible case for affirmative action in any field on the grounds that, given prejudice, anyone who appears equal on merits is really better, given all the obstacles to overcome and all that could be contributed to society. But again there's no obstacle to overcome, and Romney's claim is not that his side contributes to a broader experience for us all, but that his side holds the truth.
Fourth, there's no law prohibiting government action on behalf of blacks or women, and quite a few laws that take such action. But a government that respects the establishment of religion is in violation of the Constitution and our fundamental rights. Moreover, there's an oath of office privileging upholding the Constitution over, say, upholding the Bible.
Finally, someone who, even if there is no such someone and it's a moronic straw man, asks for your support for Clinton or Obama is not saying that white men aren't fit to be president. Romney's statement is exactly that those who disbelieve in him are evil. It's appalling.
Oh, and did I tell you that those who disagree with me, starting with Nathan, are going straight to hell?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 18, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is a "person of faith". Look where that got us. A liar. A hypocrite. A killer.
Let's take the hard-ass view that so-called people of faith are, by definition, delusional to a greater or lesser degree. Some can operate rationally despite their religion. Others, too many others, can, and do, justify whatever they want to do by referring to their sacred texts, or by claiming their god(s) talked to them and told them what to do. Anyone who needs to hear spirit voices or needs to twist old texts until the words scream in order to figure out how to live and what is right and what is wrong shouldn't be allowed to hold any position involving other peoples' lives, health, property, money, or pets.
Of course, if we had an independent press that wasn't afraid to ask these clowns real and hard questions, and call a spade a spade, a fraud a fraud, and a liar a liar, we wouldn't even need to discuss the issue of 'people of faith' holding office. We might even be able to drag our political system into the 21st century, instead of watching it sink into the quagmire of medievalism.
As for Romney, he's proven himself a liar and hypocrite already, and that he'll do anything to get into office/power, and that he'll crap on people to do it - in case no one remembers his many out of state trips as Governor of Massachusetts when he would say derogatory things about the citizens and the State of Massachusetts. But, oh yeah, he's a person of faith. Well glory be and hallelujah, he's come to save us from the sins of progressivism and liberalism and socialism. Whoop-de-doo! I can hardly wait to see what another eight years with one of these pathetic little mental and moral power-hungry midgets brings this country. Bush has us on the verge of falling back into the 19th century. Maybe the Romnians or the McCainites or whoever can push us all the way back to the 8th.
And who the hell wants a president named 'Mitt' anyway? He'll have to drop nukes just to get anyone to take him seriously.
I'm done.
February 18, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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." Constitution of the United States, Article VI
Too bad a large portion of the electorate is encouraged to impose their own kind of religious test on candidates, when it seems the Founders themselves thought it a bad idea. For them, an oath to uphold the Constitution was all that should be required.
February 18, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point about Bush almost proves Nathan's point. The Christian Right fell all over themselves for him because he made a big deal about being Christian, but if you ever listened to his statements about his faith, they were utterly empty, hollow, and self-centered. His favorite philosopher was Jesus, "Because he changed my life." How? What does that mean? What did Jesus call you to?
Contrast that with Tim Kaine's candidacy for the governorship of Virginia. He says he's personally opposed to capital punishment because of his Catholic faith, but until it is outlawed, he saw it as his job to uphold the law of Virginia. Faith important, but not overriding.
When Bush talked about Jesus, someone should have asked him how he could square his Christian faith with his view of the death penalty. I'm not saying a person of faith can't support the death penalty, but just hearing HOW that's squared can be extremely revealing.
February 18, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Homer Hewitt
Agree that a person can vote on faith, but oppose a doctrine that faith should be cosidered a prereqisite for the presidency. See last item below:
RANDOM THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS
Why is it that we see and hear from "senior" correspondents such as Senior White House or Pentagon Correspondent? I hope that at some point the news shows will give us the views of some of their better " junior" correspondents.
Tony Snow : "" I'm not so sure anything went wrong" in Iraq (later narrowed on Meet the Press). When Tony Snow is not sure about anything, I worry. I rely on him for certainty.
News Item - "GM in Talks to Buy Chrysler." Why, is Tucker Motorcars not available?
In last Wednesday's press conference, Bush claimed that he can't judge whether Iraq is a civil war while "living in this beautiful White House." His lovely surroundings haven't kept him from starting a disastrous war and now sending more troops to Iraq. We'll be quite glad when he is relieved of the burden of this beautiful house.
Is it true that many are saying that they would vote for Barack Obama if only he were black?
Mitt Romney: - "We need to have a person of faith to lead the country." So a Druid or Islamist might well qualify, but no atheist could?
from www.altara.blogspot.com.
February 18, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your analogy with Clinton and Obama is flawed, as others have pointed out. While many of their supporters may believe that it's high time for a black or woman to be president, none are arguing that ONLY blacks and women should be president. However, Romney IS arguing that only people of faith should be elected. That's totally different. That's pure bigotry.
February 18, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a bit more pessimistic. My guess is that if people were asked if they would be willing to vote for a presidential candidate who believed in utilitarianism, the results would be even more negative than for atheists, and most of the positive responses would be from people who thought they were being asked about unitarians.
The deeper problem, clearly reflected in a remark of Joseph Lieberman from the 2000 campaign that you have probably already seen, is that the antipathy towards atheists derives from a belief that
a religious person = homo economicus + fear of hellfire
and an atheist is just a homo economicus.
To challenge this underlying belief, several points are important:
1. When people like Romney and Lieberman make those remarks, we should be sincerely and justifiably offended. We are moral creatures just like them.
2. Morality is an evolved aspect of human nature, and indeed of primate nature, as is well documented in Frans de Waals' book _Good Natured: the Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Species_.
3. Religious people cheat as much as anyone else. They do _not_ act like they believe that God is watching them and will punish them later.
February 18, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really want to hear a reporter on the campaign trail ask one of these "faith based" candidates, "Do you really believe Jona was swallowed by a whale and was coughed back up 3 days later to tell about it?" Or "Do you really believe the earth quit spinning for hours to give Joshua more daylight in which to kill Cannanites?" These are questions that a "faith-based" candidate should have to answer. How else can we judge his "faith-based" character, his "faith-based" grasp on reality? We have the right to know just what kind of lunatics we're putting in the White House!
February 18, 2007 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So what? I disagree with the statement, but it's no different in kind from someone saying they support Obama because they think we need a person of color as President, or saying they support Clinton because it's high time a woman was President."
You are wrong.
There's a huge difference between saying, "Atheists can be president." and "It's about damn time we had someone who wasn't white, male or both as president."
One is inclusive and the other is exclusive.
February 19, 2007 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is an important distinction between saying that you support a candidate because of his identity (be it religious, ethnic, gender, or otherwise) - which seems unavoidable given human psychology, and that you would vote against someone because of such an identity. Furthermore, I think while voters should probably get a pass when it comes to "positive" identity voting, it is inappropriate and divisive for a candidate to base his or her appeal on appeals to identity. Doing so inevitably leads to an implicit exclusion of out-groups.
The latter is an act of discrimination. I think what Atrios and others are concerned about is that Romney is implying that a person without (a fundamentalist) faith would be unacceptable as a nominee.
February 19, 2007 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Piling on...
by the time the 2008 election comes, we will have had 8 years under Bush, a "person of faith". His faith, indeed, is a cause of many of his problems. The CIA told him that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but his faith told him otherwise. Time and time again he has thrown out the rigor of evidence, reason, and debate in favor of his prejudices, aka his "faith". Every time he's done so, he's been wrong.
So, no, I don't think we need a person of faith in the White House. Faith is not a disqualifier, but I think we need a person who can reason intelligently.
And whatever you and Atrios are up to, to show your reasonableness by letting an obvious pandering statement go untouched, is a bit hard to swallow. I'm not talking about whether this statement is constitutional, I'm talking about whether it panders to religious bigotry, which it clearly does.
February 19, 2007 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You miss my point. I'm not trying to be "reasonable" since my statement is "unreasonable" for most folks likely to read my post.
My point is that atheists have a losing strategy in trying to keep religious talk out of the public debate. They would be better to just engage the debate with their own beliefs.
As for blacks being persecuted, and a call for their participation in the public sphere being a demand for equality, sure that's true. But if you don't understand that religious conservatives see themselves persecuted by popular culture -- and they aren't the majority either -- then you don't understand their mentality. You may think religious conservatives as delusional for seeing their demands for representation by religion as equivalent to a civil rights demand, but they sure do.
And folks can intellectually analyze the lack of comparability or they engage the substance of fear and lack of understanding that motivates those beliefs. So I return to the question of strategy-- which for me is atheists not demanding no mention of religion in public space but better asserting their own beliefs.
February 19, 2007 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason people want to know if a candidate is a "person of faith" is not because it is some sort of code by which they can sum up a person's belief system, it is because they're superstitious morons who are afraid to be in the same vicinity of someone who doesn't believe - you just never know when it might be the day it pisses God off, and he sends a flood or a plague to off the disbeliever. The "you're why we can't have nice things" philosophy of life.
February 19, 2007 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I probably have heard most of the "faith" arguments in my 73 years. None have made any sense to me. In a country that is "supposed" to be secular in its government, what has faith got to do with it? Capability counts, not faith. This President is doing a good job of proving that every day. We hear "Faith and Family Values" from the right and these are who their Presidential candidates are: Romney; I can't comment on Mormonism other than at one time(some do even now) they were polygamists because I don't and don't want to know about it. Although an LDS member spreading their word did help me put up a TV antenna when he stopped to prosthelsise. Romney has had only one wife. and McCain; an adulterer who divorced and married money and political influence. Now is kissing up to the people who accused him of fathering a black child and was crazy from his treatment as a POW. I respect his service and what he endured as a POW but not as President. Next Gingrich: probably the skankiest of all..maybe not, Guliani is here. He presented divorce papers to wife #1 in the hospital while she was suffering from cancer. Classy. He was diddling an aide or intern during the Clinton impeachment while married to wife #2 and she became wife #3. Is wife #4 in sight? And Guliani: He had his first marriage annuled after FOURTEEN YEARS because he was married to his second cousin. Trolling the family reunion for dates? Wife #2 had a restraining order against bringing his girlfriend into Gracie Masnsion while mayor of NYC. She became wife #3. Doesn't this sound like athiestic doings? I'm one and I have been married to one woman 49 years. Two lovely intelligent daughters. All without "Faith." I always thought it was my responsibility to rely on myself and if necessary to ask questions regarding a problem of people who would most probably have the solution other than "pray." I would also say, our life together has had as many money, employment and domestic problems as others. I put 4 years in the US Navy, 1952-1956 and was fired in 1981 from air traffic control because I told Reagan to kiss my ass. We have a Supreme Court Justice that wears a device to cause self flagelation and pain . Does that sound sane to you? That makes his faith stronger than your faith. His cult more important than your cult. Pitiful. When I was a lot younger a person's religion was private. I guess with all the reprobates being "re-born," all have to shout it from the rooftops. Summing up: A Mormon with one wife. McCain 2 wives. Gingrich with 3 wives so far. Guliani 3 wives. But technically the fourteen don't count because it was annuled. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
February 19, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's certainly important to understand where others are coming from, even if you disagree. I think we can protect a secular political system without asking people to completely disregard their faith values in their actions, decision-making, and motivations. That doesn't have to mean that the Bible is going to decide our fate as a nation.
I think atheists would also be wise to not categorize all religious folks, whose values are guided by their particular tradition, as crazy, nut-jobs. If I were religious and read some of the comments here, I would be deeply offended. I'm sure we all know many people of faith who are perfectly rational beings. These voices aren't heard in the media, but they are out there.
February 19, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er......which is which? Is it exclusive to be white, male, or an atheist?
And inclusive? OK you can't choose to be white or male, (so you either are included or excluded) but you CAN make a decision to be an atheist, so you could consider that choice to be either inclusive (letting anyone in), or exclusive (not for anyone who has chosen to believe in god).
Help! What the hell do you mean!!!!!
Jan Knaus
February 19, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying it's about time for an African American or woman president is inclusive, because it acknowledges that an underrepresented and traditionally excluded group should have a shot. Saying someone has to be religious (and particularly with Mitt's insuation that the person must be Christian like him) to lead the country is exclusionary, because it necessarily cuts out those who are not religious/Christian.
February 19, 2007 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
UFO enthusiasts?
That hurts, coming from you.
February 20, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant the Von Daniken crowd and the Raelians, but I'm a closet UFO guy, to the extent that I pay attention to stories and don't rule them out a priori.
February 20, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
One troubling aspect of Romney's statement, and of all the supposed dialogue about "faith" in political terms in this country, is that "faith" is merely a codeword for anti-abortion, homophobic white men. There are no atheists in Congress, are there? (Name me one, and I might just move to his district and vote for him.) If all Mitt Romney and others speaking of "faith" required was a person with religious beliefs, there would be no discussion at all.
But politicians now feel that they have to prove some sort of come-to-Jesus evangelical bent with a strong grounding in the most conservative social stances. Otherwise, as with John Kerry in 2004, a Catholic can be branded as not Catholic enough, and therefore, not as a real person of faith. And the press will follow along and tra-la the idea that believing in the right to abortion makes you somehow a second-rate Christian.
As an atheist, I have long known that most people believe belief in God is necessary to hold public office. I've been voting for Christians all my adult life, happily. What people personally believe is their own business. I'm more troubled by the ever-growing tide of acceptance of a litmus tested conservative faith that informs public policy. I see Mitt Romney's words as a promise that he will be a person of faith of the George W. Bush stamp.
February 21, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
but I'm a closet UFO guy
*stores tidbit away for use in future arguments*
;-)
February 21, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am perhaps agnostic rather than atheist (meaning, I am not making too much of that), but I would say that "we all know many people of faith who are a_l_m_o_s_t perfectly rational.
I mean, isn't the whole point of f_a_i_t_h that one chooses to be imperfectly rational?
By the way, my interpretation of the popular approval of Romney position is like that "We need a President who is regular folks, not one of them strange people".
February 22, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are quite a few gay members of Congress and none atheist, probably because one cannot get caught on being atheists (although watch for those who exclaim "By the Void" or some such, rather than "Gads!").
February 22, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well most of us, when we say "perfectly rational", mean something like "just as given to rational thought as any other human being."
None of us human beings are actually "perfectly rational." Not even close, really.
February 22, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink