Romney’s Low Odium Diet
The Mitt Romney speech continues to attract a good deal of attention, to the extent that it might be worth a new thread. Over at The First Things blog Richard John Neuhaus says that folks (like me) who think Romney is stooping to respond to what is effectively religious bigotry are themselves bigots. And he offers a virtual endorsement of Romney. Interesting. The Washington Post editorial page and columns take much the same tack as does the NYTimes, most notably the lead Times editorial as well as the David Brooks column. They argued that Romney was essentially promoting a political version of the “ecumenism of the barricades,” similar to that which has brought together many of those notorious former mutual anathematizers, Catholics and Evangelicals. So Neuhaus’ take makes sense, as well as giving himself cover to vote for one of his own political stripe, I would guess. But as Neuhaus and Brooks and others note, Romney makes such an effort to avoid odium theologicum that he winds up doing a disservice to theology, and religions, whatever they may be. I tend to agree. This is what happens when we demand that politicians be religious leaders as well. Both vocations lose. Now, discuss amongst yourselves…
PS: As evidence for that last statement, it seems Romney has gone from pastor to attack dog with some campaign ads in New Hampshire.
“Powerful” isn’t the first word that comes to mind. “Flat” and “predictable” are more like it. The notion that Romney is or has been publicly defending Mormonism is hard to believe. In fact, one might wonder how much he even knows about his faith: http://youtube.com/watch?v=H5Xc-X8LckQ. Or perhaps he just doesn’t like talking about it much: http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-H83tfCfP8. He’s “true blue through and through” when it comes to Mormonism, yet he has repeatedly refused to “confess” that faith when asked directly about some of its more controversial aspects. And RJN compares him to Luther? Bit much, that.
I am really struggling with this one. Last October, I got really upset with the website Faithful Democrats for running a piece on a Minnesota Republican running for Congress who was a member of a Lutheran (I forget which one) denomination that had an official website on which it is declared that the Pope is the antiChrist. I thought this was a really cheap shot for four reasons: 1) they never established that she believed it; 2) did not establish that it affected her voting in any way; 3) she was more in line with lots of Catholic issues, especially tax breaks for parochial schools and the classic beginning and end of life issues, than her Democratic counterpart; and 4) rather ignored all of the unpleasant things the Catholic Church had said about Lutherans and others in the past. I thought the whole discussion was a low blow that I did not want to be a part of. I have not participated in the website since.
That said, I cannot get beyond two facts related to Romney: 1) He was a religious leader in the Mormon Church; and 2) It is (and I checked this with a Jack Mormon colleague, so I apologize if I am incorrect) Mormon doctrine that good Mormon men lead their own planet/kingdom after death on earth, and, moreover, that women do not gain such leadership roles, but instead get to serve men for eternity. I just really want to know if Romney thinks these things are true. It strikes me as somehow different than the Pope is the antichrist situation, but I am not sure how. Will being President help Romney develop leadership skills that will be necessary on planet Romney? Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
I also think this concern is relevant to the discussion below on whether or not all religious wackiness is created equal. Some guidance would be greatly appreciated.
test
I think the issue boils down to the role of faith in public life. Romney is sounding a much more Benedict XVI styled tone concerning that issue.
The particularities of his devotion or belief in the afterlife are less important to me than public policy issues. If someone completely unfamiliar with Catholicism were to look at our practice they would see people quietly sitting in front of a white wafer encased in gold surrounded by candles. These people actually genuflect to this white wafer. Indeed they believe that they are consuming God and have all kinds of elaborate teachings about this white wafer. They have constructed a huge political apparatus and told people that unless you are part of this club you cannot have this wafer.
Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists all have strange customs.
The issue is an remains political rationality and the extent to which faith is necessary to illuminate political rationaiity for the sake of the common good.
The secularist arguement is that it isn’t. Faith is, at best, according to that paradigm, a psychological comfort to deal with the viscitudes of life.
Ultimately there can be no answer to this question except on the level of inter-subjective experience and dialogue. I think we can all agree that the vast majority of people hold to some kind of transcendent values that we believe are universal and not necessarily empirically verifiable in terms of their impact on our shared public life.
The alternative is a Nietzschean universe in which the will to power is the upward thrust of humanity and any values such as compassion and pity simply frustrate that aim. I do believe that the USA is in fact strongly inundated with this Nietzschean paradigm beginning with her history with the manifest destiny, continuing with the bombing of Hiroshima, moving towards uncritical support for the Israel and displacement of thousands of people from their homes, etc. All of this has been done under the veneer of the USA being somehow the new Israel (a Protestant idea).
In that sense, having a distinct corporate body like the Catholic church makes sense as we don’t then conflate the state with any kind of divine mandate or priveledge. It simply exists as a mechanism to further the common good. That’s it. In a sense, in my view, the state is in fact amoral. Morality is derived from other sources but there is always going to be this distinction.
Articulating that distinction is tricky because as a citizen of the modern West I hold an indifference to truth claims of religious bodies while affirming their right to be heard in the civil and political life of the state. As a religious person, I am supposed to assent to the unique claims of my faith (namely that Jesus is unique and Divine), that the fullness of truth and salvation subsists in the (Roman) Catholic Church.
I like what George D. says above. It sounds sensible.
While I believe with all my heart that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the Golden Tablets are utter frauds, I also come from a state with a high number of Mormons, and had another Mormon Romney as governor.
George Romney is perhaps best known for having said he was “brainwashed” about Vietnam, and jokes were made about it at the time. But it seems to me that several candidates today are backpedalling about their votes for the incursion into Iraq on similar grounds.
Romney, bless him, was willing to say he’d been duped, and that takes courage and discernment. He was decent, honest and moderate, and if his faith helped him develop these characteristics, then I say it oughtn’t to be an issue.
However, Mitt seems unable to persuade people that his record is one of honesty and consistency, and that’s why we’re sidetracked about whether he wears funny underwear (like a silice isn’t weird …) or about how many wives he’ll get on Planet Romney and whether they’ll have to pick up his dirty socks for all eternity.