Lately, faith has taken quite the spotlight in the national news. Whether it has been the controversy surrounding the atheistic, soul-sucking children's film The Golden Compass (read Jenni Davis' excellent and accurate op/ed in the most recent issue); the city-approved 'Imagine No Religion' 3D sign next to Hanukkah and Christmas decorations in Rockville, Connecticut's Central Park (http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7470226&nav=menu29_2); Borders Book Stores tagging atheist Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' cards (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071217/30535_Borders_Tags_Atheist_Book_with_'O_Come_All_Ye_Faithl); or the speculation and criticism (and even condemnation) surrounding the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney due to his Mormon (or LDS) faith, nearly all I have heard is complaints and drivel about (and usually from) people of faith being persecuted.
Regardless of the religion(s) involved, no faith has been persecuted in any of these recent scenarios. Criticism of one's faith or the support of one's lack of faith is central to open and democratic discussion on the topic of religion. It is not persecution of faith. On the contrary, persecution would involve these criticisms or supports being suppressed, obstructed, or even attempted to be suppressed or obstructed. This is what has happened in all of the four scenarios listed above. Whole groups boycotted the free-thought provoking The Golden Compass (even after the studio whitewashed it of any blatant atheism or anti-religion). Nearly every person of faith in Rockville, Connecticut tried to remove and/or destroy the 'Imagine No Religion' sign, and were successful in blocking it from view with a Christmas tree. Whole groups boycotted Borders Book Stores and made various threats due to the atheist Xmas cards. Mitt Romney, and many Mormons alike, constantly whine of being persecuted whenever probed about their doctrinal beliefs. None of these reactions ever happen to the actions of religious people, but they happen nearly every time to the actions of irreligious people.
The candidacy and controversy of Mitt Romney has hit close to home here in overwhelmingly LDS Davis County, Utah. It often feels like living in a single-party state with the unbalanced reaction in favor of Mitt Romney, and the condemnation of any condemnation of Mitt Romney's candidacy on the basis of his LDS faith. It is true that the Constitution bans a religious test for office. This does not mean you cannot condemn a candidacy based on the candidate's faith, it just means you cannot officially disqualify the candidate. If this public opinion test of religion is persecution, then it is the faithless who again are most prone to persecution, as it is virtually impossible to be elected to public office as an atheist (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=267). If Mitt Romney's Faith in America speech did one thing, it re-pointed out how people of no faith are still and will continue to be persecuted in the field of politics and government. Columnist Eduardo Porter elaborates impressively on this observation in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/opinion/14fri3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).
Mitt Romney should be ready to stand up for his faith, and that includes answering all doctrinal questions (unlike his persecution-whimpering dodging of the "Do you believe Satan and Jesus are brothers?" question). He shouldn't refer people to the Church web site (which does not give a complete explanation for all doctrines), saying that he is not a Church official, because he is a representative for the faith, as far as politics is concerned. Besides, what is he so afraid of? Is he afraid that an honest answer to all such questions would devastate his campaign? Well, it probably would. Many of the doctrines of Mormonism are still unsettling to most people of all other faiths. Change, or get over it. Christopher Hitchens does a better job at explaining these realistic and often ironic truths in the online magazine Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/).
I am not criticizing religion, I am criticizing those who protect religion from all profound and provocative inquiries. I am tired of religious people painting irreligious people with the negative qualities that they most distinctly possess themselves. It is the people of faith who are the main persecutors, not the persecuted. This is reaction formation at its finest. It is really quite a sad, non-paradoxical cheat that many people of faith have trapped faithless people into. I recommend people appreciate nonbelievers in a more overlapping convention (although, not the same with reason and logic). It seems that it would be beneficial to the country if more of her people, and her politicians (being not people), were aware of Percy Bysshe Shelley's The Necessity of Atheism (which he published anonymously out of fear, and was expelled from Oxford for not denying his authorship of), and the message he strongly conveys in it, of the nature of belief and disbelief, and how disbelieving citizens is certainly a necessary component in a healthy society, at the very least. This begets the logical conclusion that disbelieving politicians is also a necessary component of a healthy society. Americans need to shake off their prejudices and stop persecuting nonbelievers, and instead embrace them with open arms! To read the treatise yourself, utilize the following link: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~djb/shelley/necessity1880.html
Please comment if you agree or disagree (or have a neutral opinion) with this perspective, or if you have any questions - and please, when doing so, show some understanding and sophistication, and please don't jump on me as a insensitive and stupid atheist, as that is just simply not true. Thanks! I hope everyone is having/had a happy holiday (and don't believe in the claims that there is a war on Christmas, it is at most a war on theocracy) and is staying/stayed safe until the return of school in the next year!
- Adam
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Faith Persecuted?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The truth is, though, that if Romney were to be forced to represent his church that that would be to inextricably entangle religion and politics and to make very clear that religious tests by the public are acceptable bases on which to choose a candidate. I don't think those are ideas you support, Adam.
For him to refer people to the LDS site is exactly the right thing to do--he doesn't have all the answers, doesn't claim to, and, most importantly, is running as a conservative former governor, Olympic organizer, and business executive. Not as a mormon. The specific tenets of his faith are no more relevant than the minutiae of a candidate's personal life, e.g. whether Bill Richardson roots for the Yankees or Red Sox.
A forum wherein candidates are not discussing policy, but are instead defending ideas with tenuous (at best) relevance to their ability to govern effectively is one in which the basest instincts of the populace will flourish.
-Kyle
By the way, you should really disable (your) comment moderation on this blog. So much for the free exchange.
I do not support disqualifying a candidate based on any faith or belief, as the Constitution bans. I do support non-governmental, public religious tests, though. That is not banned by the Constitution. I think the Framers actually would encourage that. Kyle, it makes me wonder, from your comments, do you support banning the inquiry of a candidate's personal religious beliefs? You can't deny that Mitt Romney's religious beliefs naturally dictate his life and the decisions that he makes, and the motives behind those decisions. That makes his religious beliefs open to great inquiry and criticism on a mainstream public stage. This makes the specific tenets of his faith incredibly more relevant to his candidacy than would a candidate's baseball team preference, which, unlike religious beliefs, virtually never influences policy decisions.
Religion is not "tenuous" to a candidate's ability to govern effectively. It is central to whether they are a candidate that America generally wants governing the country. Policy and religion go together. Policy is not being left out of the discussion merely because of an open discussion on faith and religious beliefs. Religion cannot be protected, once it is, the best and most healthy instincts of the populace will be hindered.
And...by the way, I really shouldn't disable the comment moderation on this blog. If I did so, I would not be able to prevent crude and explicit language from being posted. I do not reject any comments, unless they have inappropriate language of any kind, including if they are completely arbitrary and/or unnecessary (such as a simple comment saying "I like cheese" on a post about Bhutto, for example). I am all about free exchange. I will not block any legitimate opinions. My opinions don't matter when it comes to comment moderation. But, remember that I also have to keep in compliance with District policy. This requires me to enact comment moderation. Don't forget that, Kyle. In fact, I just wrote a new post that addresses this issue, along with others, if you haven't already read it. If you haven't, I recommend you do.
Asking if I support banning inquiring on a candidates religion misses the point completely. In case we've strayed too far to remember, I was, in part, defending the motives of those who feel that probing into whether Romney believes things like that Christ and Satan are brothers is irrelevant politically. Remember that being upset at the further devolution of political culture is very different than saying the government should somehow restrict speech to solve the problem.
Romney's faith of course dictates how he leads his life and the decisions he makes, and that's your argument for considering it as an issue. But that assertion makes clear that what matter are the actions taken by a candidate once elected, and there's nothing to prevent a voter from seeing the ways Romney will act on any given issue without applying a religious test--something we've long seen as a distraction from the real issues.
In short, insofar as a candidate's religion influences their policy decisions, the potential effects are readily apparent by considering only what's in the civic sphere. Defenseless, to go further, are inquiries into doctrine that has no policymaking relevance. These are the questions that usually draw the most reprimand.
Good answer. I am glad you agree with me to some degree. But I still feel that Mitt Romney should answer the "Are Jesus and Satan brothers?" question, as well as other doctrinal questions, but your point (that it is irrelevant) should be included in his answer. Because it is a good point, and he would make people feel ridiculous for asking their question by saying it. But he should still answer the question (not just reply to it), because people already have skewed views on Mormonism enough as it is (whether better or worse than the actuality), and the Church web site isn't going to help with that problem.
Read my response to you on my blog:
http://bemorte.blogspot.com/.
Although, there are many things I disagree with (such as persecution being healthy, degrees or comparisons of persecution, and what religious zealousy means for the country's future), and things about me that are assumptions (my beliefs), I still enjoyed bemorte's response to this post. He was funny, and didn't resort to crude language and petty insults (as have many comments that I had to block from this blog). I recommend people read his response, but with a critical mind, rather than loving it quickly without thought. I took his advice and tried to be more open minded. For me, that meant settling for agreement or acceptance on some issues he brought up. For others to be open minded, it will probably involve being more critical of his response, and seeing the perspective that I originally wrote from. I will though, without hesitation, credit bemorte for being fair, balanced, and mostly moderate.
Well, a candidate's religion will dictate a candidates values and decisions, to some extent. It's much more relevant than which ball team one cheers for (go, Yankees!). But specific points of doctrine a candidate believes in really don't matter. The evangelicals who want to pounce on some twisted interpretations of Mormon doctrine and throw them in Romney's face don't really care about the issues. They just want to antagonize Mormonism. News for the evangelicals: you don't need an election to do that, because Mormons have made nice punching bags since the 1820's. Intelligent voters stopped hashing the Satan-Jesus point and similar questions long ago, and started looking at the issues that matter.
Post a Comment