To address Romney's perspective on the the separation of church and state I will once again examine his exegesis on 'faith in America' which he delivered in 2007. Romney seemed to make himself clear that if he was elected to office, he would not let his personal religious views corrupt his political decision-making when it came down to the overall well being of the nation. But how can one make such a claim so easily? After all, it seems unlikely that if one was to let their personal beliefs and ideologies take precedent over their duty as commander in chief that they would be directly conscious of their action. I don't believe that religion is something as simple and defined as a coat or jacket that one can put on and off at their convenience. Religion affects the individual and the individual's mind. It establishes significance in the way in which they think and reason, the way in which they live their lives, and the way in which they view and interact with the surrounding world.
During his speech, Romney notes that, "I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law." It is as if Romney is denouncing the notion that any one religion should have complete control or autonomy over our government and our laws, but he is simultaneously advocating on behalf of religion in general as being a necessary piece of our society, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," he continues, "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." This specific passage outlines Romney's view boldly.
He is arguing for freedom of religion, so long as one follows a religion with a specific theology, but his language becomes increasingly more anti-secularist as his speech continues, "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."
I found it incredibly interesting that Romney referred to secularism as a religion considering that by definition secularism is the absence of religion and religiosity. Furthermore, if secularism is a religion, as Romney points out, shouldn't it be afforded the same protection and equal treatment that Romney so passionately addressed earlier in his speech? Romney violated his own creed in singling out secularists. He expressed intolerance for a belief system and creed that is different from his own.
I also think he is being hypocritical in disregarding atheists from his definition of freedom. In regards to the first part of your post, I absolutely agree that religion will affect Romney's politics whether he cares to admit it or not. However, I have been reading about Jimmy Carter (for my presidential paper), and I was impressed by the fact that he actually carried out this notion of separating his religious values from his political decisions. Although he personally and religiously was opposed to abortion, he signed legislation that upheld Roe v. Wade because he believed it was his duty as president to support the Supreme Court, not his Christian values. This decision cost him the evangelical vote and ultimately re-election.
ReplyDeleteI think that you bring up an incredibly interesting point. Many evangelicals who talk about the freedom of religion and separation of church and state seem to think that those only apply to Protestants, and maybe Catholics as well. Yet, nowhere in the Constitution does it clearly exclude any religion, or a lack of religion, from those protections. This idea of Christian sects only seems to have been drummed up in an effort to do precisely what the First Amendment attempts to protect: deny people the right to practice a religion of their choice.
ReplyDeleteRomney's views of the separation of church and state are quite similar to the candidate I'm following, Ron Paul. Both are resoundingly against a theocracy of any sort but at the same time believe in the importance of a religious nation. In their minds the First Amendment only applies to the free exercise of religion, not the abolishing of public displays of religion in favor of non-discriminating secularism. Because Christianity is the predominant faith in America, thye themselves are Christian and believe America was founded on Christian principles, they focus the growing secularism as an attack on Christianity and thus the foundation of America. Because Christianity is the basis of American life the best way to promote the ideals of the country is to then allow everyone, either individuals or communities, to choose how they publicly express their religious beliefs, not force them to practice them privately.
ReplyDelete