Did Romney Declare Opposing Beliefs Illegitimate?
Ezra Klein praises the first half of Romney’s speech, but comes down hard on the finish:
[A]fter taking the principled stand that the specifics of his faith were not relevant to his pursuit of the presidency, Romney spat upon the bright line he had just drawn, and proclaimed himself safely within the bounds of the dominant religious groups whose votes he desires. “There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked,” he said. “What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.”
I don’t know whether Mitt Romney believes that or not. I don’t really care. But I don’t believe that. My beliefs, or lack thereof, are less broadly accepted. And Romney, by prominently proclaiming his fealty to traditional Christian doctrine, just said, essentially, that they are illegitimate.
Did he? Really? I’m not exactly a Romney fanboy, but I still don’t see it. In fact, I see just the opposite: Romney doesn’t condemn nonbelievers, he simply says he’s not one of them. But he prefaces this by saying, quite forcefully, that it’s right and good to accept those who believe differently.
The way I read the speech is that Romney first said that religion should neither deny a man the job of president nor simply hand it over to him, and argued that all people, even the president, have both the freedom to believe as they choose and the obligation to show a measure of respect to those who believe differently.
And then he went on to explain, in broad, anodyne language, the general shape of his own personal beliefs. Not because he felt they would either grant or deny him the presidency, or because he wanted to use them as a tool for division, but because it is reasonable to ask about the beliefs of a man running for the highest office in the land. In fact, he follows the statement that Ezra quotes by saying that all belief systems are unique, but all are deserving of civility: “Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.” This hardly seems like a threat, or a declaration of “illegitimacy.”
Romney’s speech had problems—among them, its very existence—but it doesn’t seem plausible to interpret it as a call for rejecting those whose views on religion differ. If anything, it said exactly the opposite—awkwardly, perhaps, and with a lack of focus and far too much emphasis on that which he has vowed not to say (no speech should focus so heavily on that which you refuse to talk about; it only calls more attention to the shrouded topic).
But by Ezra’s reasoning, anyone, or at least any politician, who admits to religious belief somehow also declares all opposing beliefs “illegitimate.” That seems pretty thin to me, especially considering the many liberal legislators who would and do make public admissions of faith. Are they, also, all attacking Ezra’s religious views? I don’t see why it’s not possible to say, from the outset, that some particular religious belief should neither be a ticket into office nor a barrier to it, and then announce one’s own beliefs while declaring personal respect for all others. And, essentially, I think that’s pretty much what Romney did.
<i>My beliefs, or lack thereof, are less broadly accepted. And Romney, by prominently proclaiming his fealty to traditional Christian doctrine, just said, essentially, that they are illegitimate.</i>
well, yes. traditional christian belief implies that those who don’t those beliefs are wrong. i happen to think christians are wrong.
— razib · Dec 7, 05:52 AM · #
I think Ezra might have been paying attention to some of the subtext of Romney’s speech. But you’re absolutely right, if you take the speech at face value and assume that it was nothing other than a simple listing of unconnected statements which Romney happens to believe to be true, then, yes, he wasn’t saying anything about non-believers.
— Adam · Dec 7, 06:32 AM · #
It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
I think Ezra was thinking about this line. I agree – it makes me grind my teeth, especially after that guff about sharing “a common creed of moral convictions” regardless of theology. Of “abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life,” consensus has only emerged across churches after the first two were firmly settled in favor of the non-traditionalists, and there isn’t anything near consensus on “the right to life.” The only consensus that has historically existed across churches is that there is a God. That’s the only consensus that Romney can appeal to, so he comes up with this “religion of secularism” bogeyman. And that’s kind of a dick move.
— Trevor · Dec 7, 06:52 AM · #
Isn’t the problem here (with both Ezra’s and Razib’s comments) a conflation of “wrong” and “illegitimate”? I mean, surely we don’t want to be in a position of saying that someone who thinks others’ religious views are “wrong” thereby says that it is “illegitimate” that others hold them (and illegitimate in the sense that they can’t be citizens in good standing). That would only follow if we all thought Rousseau right when he suggested that you couldn’t live in peace with someone you thought damned. Do folks believe that?
— Michael Simpson · Dec 7, 03:32 PM · #
The headline on CNN for their story on the speech was “Romney: ‘Freedom requires religion’”. Read this section of the speech—“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”—and tell me that he’s not illegitimizing nonbelief.
— Dan Miller · Dec 7, 04:56 PM · #
“Freedom requires religion?” That would seem to be a problem for those of us with no religion. Romney wanted it both ways: He wanted to say there should be no religious test, than say he passed the religious test. By basically misrepresenting his beliefs to fit within mainstream Christianity — and attacked us in “the religion of secularism” — he reinforced the idea that you have to be a Christian (or at least Judeo-Christian) to win the presidency, and opportunistically argued that the real “weirdos, the real folks you can’t trust, are the non-believers.
I wouldn’t argue that the speech was politically smart. But I’d hope no one reading it would argue tat it was really a plea for tolerance, or a statement against religious litmus tests.
— Ezra · Dec 7, 05:04 PM · #
Peter: I’m with the critics on this one.
The speech was, overall, a decent one. It’s certainly being well-received. But Romney made three mistakes.
First, “freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.” Neither half of this statement is obviously true – the second half is almost self-evidently false, and the first half is highly debatable. I suspect that Romney meant to say something like what Washington said in his Farewell Address – that religion has historically been the cradle of virtue, and virtue is needed to secure a free republic, so we should be wary of undermining religion among the citizenry. But that’s not what he said, and what he said could easily be interpreted to mean something more like, “people who aren’t believers can’t be trusted to defend freedom” or even, “people who aren’t believers can’t really be free” – and those are not the sorts of things any President should be saying. At a minimum, it’s confusing; to some, like Ezra, it comes off as both ridiculous and insulting.
Second, and more seriously, there’s the line Ezra quotes in your excerpt, about his belief in Jesus Christ. This is seriously problematic for a different reason. Romney’s beliefs, as a Mormon, are highly unorthodox. There is nothing wrong with that; he’s free to have any beliefs he wants, and perfectly qualified to be President regardless. But one big concern among conservative evangelicals is that by voting for Romney they are in some fashion endorsing the notion that Mormonism is Christian, which they believe it is not. Romney needed to take this issue off the table. Instead, Romney basically just said to these people: yes, I am Christian – and if you ask me any questions whose answers might undermine my assertion that I’m a Christian, you’re a religious bigot. That’s ludicrous, and, worse, certain to backfire, because he’s basically telling people with these concerns that they are absolutely right to be concerned. David Frum makes a similar point here.
Third, the overall emphasis of the speech was wrong. Romney did not need to reassure people that Mormonism was Christian, nor, for that matter, that he wouldn’t be obeying orders from Salt Lake City (I don’t think anybody really worried that he was some kind of Mormon Manchurian Candidate). He needed to reassure people as to his character. He has adopted, late in life, the policy stances and the rhetoric of the Christian Right. But he is not their co-religionist. It is reasonable for them to ask why he has come to agree with them. He could have answered with reference to his faith, or with reference to pure reason; either would have been fine. But he can’t say, in effect, “I’m a Christian, so I agree with you, but don’t ask me any detailed questions or you’re being intolerant” and expect that to be satisfactory. Jay Cost thinks he should have answered by being open-kimono with respect to the details of Mormon theology. I disagree; that would probably not help him at all. Rather, I think he should have said, in effect: here’s how the experience of growing up in the Mormon Church affected my character, made me who I am – and who I am is somebody with the kinds of values you can trust, the kinds of values that are driving my positions on these issues you care about. But, then, you know what I thought he should have said.
— Noah Millman · Dec 7, 05:34 PM · #
Yeah, it looks like you’ve have some careless quotation there, Peter. When I read your post, I was prepared to write “geez, what does Ezra think—that people who believe in Christ shouldn’t say it?” (well, it’s not such a crazy view, but it’s hardly the only thing he charged Romney with). But you left out the following paragraph, in which he quotes Romney saying
“We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust,” continued Romney,I was never asked whether I was part of that “we.” But according to Romney’s rhetoric, the rhetoric of the man who would be my leader, I either accept that tenet, or accept that I am not part of the nation in which I was born
which is a pretty clearly backs up a criticism of Ezra’s. I can’t decide if Ezra has one criticism or two, but there’s clearly something in there that doesn’t come across in your presentation of Ezra’s view.
— Justin · Dec 7, 06:46 PM · #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fbzoNT7iKY
— Joules · Dec 7, 10:39 PM · #