E-mail
Print
Keep faith out of it!
Religious beliefs not essential in presidential race
By Chris Walker
It is a disappointing fact that, in America today, we still have such intolerance towards differing religions.
Mitt Romney, a conservative Republican candidate running for president and former governor of Massachusetts, is a Mormon. For many, this is a problem; the Republican Party has, for some time now, been the party of Evangelical Christians, and to many within that category, Mormonism is a cult that has drastically tainted the teachings of the Bible.
It is a disappointing fact that, in America today, we still have such intolerance towards differing religions. I may not like Romney’s politics – if you haven’t noticed by now, I’m a staunch Democratic-leaning liberal – but his faith is his to choose. The voters concerned with his faith should instead focus on his actions, his stances on issues and his character. Just because the Mormon faith has several beliefs that lie outside mainstream Christianity that doesn’t make it any less a valid religion. Indeed, Christianity itself began in a similar way, as a drastic change from Judaism.
However, there are several religious problems I DO have with Romney. In a speech he gave last week, Romney asserted that those who think that religion is not a matter to be taken seriously are “at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator.” He went on to say that, “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.”
I find many troubling problems with Romney’s statements. First, while I do consider religion to be a serious matter, I do not consider it serious for EVERYONE in America. There are thousands of decent and moral Americans who are agnostic or atheist, who don’t fret over matters of religion on a daily basis.
Second, the Founding Fathers did recognize a Creator when drafting the Declaration of Independence. But they also recognized the individual’s right to not recognize that Creator when they added the First Amendment to the Constitution. America, in their eyes, was not meant to be a religious nation; that is, the government itself would not involve itself in the matters of religion, nor should religion involve itself with government.
Even Romney himself recognizes the importance of his church staying out of political matters, and for this I must give him credit. “I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law,” he said in his speech.
The final thing I find troubling within Romney’s statements is the idea that religion and freedom are dependent upon one another. This is simply untrue – one needs only to look at oppressive Islamic nations of present and Christian nations of past to see why.
I do not mean to say that religion is a precursor to authoritarianism. What I mean to say is that the idea that freedom can only exist with religion is absurd.
For many Americans, a strong religious (read: Christian) background is a litmus test towards attaining the presidency. Mitt Romney is having problems right now because of this litmus test...his religion, which he chose freely, is a hindrance to his campaign for all the wrong reasons. In this way, religion is obstructing his freedom, or at least his chance to have a fair shot within an election, which Romney (as an American) has the right to have.
Americans would be doing themselves a service to educate themselves about each candidate’s credentials and stances. Basing votes upon how closely a candidate aligns with a person’s religious beliefs is not something befitting a presidential election.
> Comments
Johanan Raatz on Dec 10, 2007 at 10:37 AM:
“I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law,”
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."
Hmm it seems that Romney's views are similar to mine then.
"The final thing I find troubling within Romney’s statements is the idea that religion and freedom are dependent upon one another."
About that. There is a subtle yet strong argument to be made to connect freedom with religion(or more specifically "Universals"). You can check it out in my 'One Nation Under God Article.'
Basically it goes something like this: In order to have freedom you need to have a universal moral order otherwise anyone can do anything they want to you thus making you unfree. However in order to have a universal moral code you need a sort of ubermensch, or a Hobbesian strong man to support that moral code and thus "universalize" it. However, if you have a strong man acting as the weight behind your moral code that in itself can be make people unfree. So ideally you want a sort of strong man who isn't really a man and thus who will not turn out to be a tyrant.
So what Romney was saying is actually very accurate. Basically it means either we have an unruly populace that doesn't believe in God or Universals and we need a tyrant to keep them in line, or people can accept God and Universals and thus be able to govern themselves.
This sentiment was very much reflected by the Founders. Now they didn't want any one religion to run government(separation of church and state), but they did want society to be religious as a religious society wouldn't need to be governed by a tyrant.
For example William Penn for whom Pennsylvania is named expressed this point very succinctly here: "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."
Now you could have a more secular society without public religious influence, but that would require a more Hobbesian setup where we would need to continue expanding executive authority, and I'm not sure that is the most desirable way to protect freedom.
Chris on Dec 11, 2007 at 08:28 AM:
"In order to have freedom you need to have a universal moral order otherwise anyone can do anything they want to you thus making you unfree."
Why does a moral order have to have grounds in religion? We all agree on basic truths: murder is wrong, for example. But that truth is derived from libertarian (not the party) means. It also happens to be part of many religious codes, but as far as the law is concerned, it is a question of infringing on a person's liberty.
Liberty is a better moral code than religion, as far as the state is concerned. Enforcing laws that are based on religion is a strong endorsement of that religion; it places its morals above those of other religions (otherwise, we'd be using THEIR codes).
With liberty, we can be sure that freedom is always kept; with religion, we can't be sure (look at religious theocracies in the world today, and tell me how free they really are).
Basically, a law where another person infringes upon your rights is in violation of a libertarian (again, not the party) code of morals. I take a Millsian/utilitarian view on this subject, and believe that no law is just if it infringes upon an individual's right to do something that affects only them. Therefore, all religious matters that any individual takes should remain within the private lives of all, not within the public sphere of the government, which would infringe upon the right of the people if it endorsed a religion (because that religion would get "special treatment").
This doesn't mean that political leaders cannot call upon their faith to help them make political decisions...it's often a grueling task to make decisions that affect so many people. Whether or not to drop an atomic bomb, I'm sure, weighed heavily within the religious morals of Truman during WWII. Contrarily, MAKING your religious convictions law is unfair to those who don't share it, and thus an endorsement of religion, infringing upon those that don't share those convictions.
"So what Romney was saying is actually very accurate. Basically it means either we have an unruly populace that doesn't believe in God or Universals and we need a tyrant to keep them in line, or people can accept God and Universals and thus be able to govern themselves. "
What I want to point out is that God or religion isn't necessary to create Universals. We all have them, though they are not grounded in religion but rather liberty. Murder is illegal (infringes upon the right to live), rape is illegal (infringes upon an individual's right to choose whom they want to have sex with), tax evasion is illegal (it cheats others who are "playing fairly" by paying their taxes), and so forth. That religion happens to share many values that libertarianism holds dear to is simply coincidental, and that should be evident in the fact that religious laws do not rule over our country...we're allowed to cheat on our spouses without facing criminal charges, we're allowed to avoid paying charities if we want to, we're allowed to shave our faces if we want.
Religious-derived law is exclusionary, while libertarian-derived law is not; it affects all religions equally, without endorsing a single one. Romney's remarks, that freedom requires religion, are untrue because religion has no basis in a libertarian model of democracy.
Johanan Raatz on Dec 11, 2007 at 09:47 AM:
"Contrarily, MAKING your religious convictions law is unfair to those who don't share it, and thus an endorsement of religion, infringing upon those that don't share those convictions."
I agree with that, and I am not arguing that any one religion should run the country. What I am trying to argue for however is Religion in the generic sense being a part of public life. The reason for this is that (just from experience) once (most) people become secular their universal beliefs start to go fuzzy and they fall into existentialism and anti-Platonism. At this point there universals become not so universal anymore.
Now this is not universally the case. I mean a friend of mine who is a positive atheist is also a staunch Platonist. This is by far the exception rather than the rule though. A week ago we had a discussion about he was telling me that once someone becomes an atheist the next thing that generally happens is they become an anti-platonist as well.
We all have them, though they are not grounded in religion but rather liberty.
To a serious philosopher? Yes. To 98% of society? No. People like us often forget that most people do not think like us.
Well you have a list of things here but let's see if they really are as universal as you think in today's somewhat relativist society.
Murder is illegal (infringes upon the right to live),
Always? What about abortion? If you fuzz up here and waffle on what "personhood" really means you are only proving my point about existentialism influences universals. Now someone might say that opposition to abortion is a religious belief, but if I became an atheist tommorrow I wouldn't change my views on abortion at all. So I don't find that criticism to be very weighty either.
"rape is illegal (infringes upon an individual's right to choose whom they want to have sex with),"
Does this include statutory rape? Before someone is of age to properly consent? There is a pedophile party in a certain European country that wants to reduce that age to 12! It has a backlash but not nearly as much as it should. This is an excellent example to look at as it is happening in a European environment where things are far more affected by existentialism than they are here. Over here in a religious environment people would oppose it for secular reasons far more than they would oppose it for secular reasons in Europe. This is a rather strange effect (that RELIGION should increase the strength and absolutness of ones SECULAR beliefs but it is a quite real effect).
"tax evasion is illegal (it cheats others who are "playing fairly" by paying their taxes), and so forth."
Yes, but without a God or a moral fibre that either comes from a sort of Stoic sense of duty (which is rare) or a religious belief in God(which is common) people don't always do it. Some people rationalize to themselves that stealing and cheating really isn't so bad afterall.
What I want to point out is that God or religion isn't necessary to create Universals.
"Romney's remarks, that freedom requires religion, are untrue because religion has no basis in a libertarian model of democracy."
Whose libertarian model though? You see the problem is that one persons conception of libertarianism differs from another persons. Now this wouldn't be a problem if they talked it out and came to an objective conclusion but then that conclusion wouldn't be considered objective to a third person. (and so forth)
Now if someone were a staunch platonist like myself or my friend this wouldn't be a problem, but with someone of a more pragmatic bent (which is most people) this tends to erode people's beliefs in objectivity, and once that happens people tend to become relativists and more and more things that where previously viewed as unacceptable are allowed to slide.
You see what is consistent with libertarian theory and would be true in principle if everyone where Platonist philosophers. The problem is that many philosophers today are not as platonic and anti-relativist as they should be and outside of that most people are not philosophers or intellectuals and are therefore far more prone to slipping into existentialism and relativism.
I happen to believe in a God and am religious myself. However other than that this quote sums up the general point I am trying to convey here:
"If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without ... let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine -- for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish." ~Irving Kristol
Religion is a way to safeguard against existentialism and anti-platonism from slipping into society and politics. Theoretically if everyone where Vulcans this would not be the case necessarily, the problem is that people are humans and they are far more pragmatic when it comes to universals.