This Week in God

First up from The God Machine this week is a much-discussed opinion piece from Richard John Neuhaus, a conservative Catholic priest, in his far-right journal, First Things. The premise is surprisingly straightforward: Christians, Neuhaus argues, should hesitate before supporting Mitt Romney because Romney is a Mormon.

It is not an unreasonable prejudice for people who, unlike Alan Wolfe et al., care about true religion to take their concern about Mormonism into account in considering the candidacy of Mr. Romney. The question is not whether, as president, Mr. Romney would take orders from Salt Lake City. I doubt whether many people think he would. The questions are: Would a Mormon as president of the United States give greater credibility and prestige to Mormonism? The answer is almost certainly yes. Would it therefore help advance the missionary goals of what many view as a false religion? The answer is almost certainly yes. Is it legitimate for those Americans to take these questions into account in voting for a presidential nominee or candidate? The answer is certainly yes….

I can now register a respectful disagreement with John Fund when he writes, “We will be a better country if even people who don’t support Mr. Romney for president come to recognize that our country is better off if his candidacy rises or falls on factors that have nothing to do with his faith.” On the contrary, we are a better country because many Americans do take their faith, and the faith of others, very seriously indeed. Also when it comes to voting.

It’s an awkward argument, to put it mildly. Neuhaus has put anti-Mormon animus into print in a way most would avoid.

In fact, I’m curious. What would the reaction be at First Things if an anti-Catholic bigot wrote, “The question is not whether, as president, a Roman Catholic candidate would take orders from Rome. I doubt whether many people think he would. The questions are: Would a Catholic as president of the United States give greater credibility and prestige to Roman Catholicism? Would it therefore help advance the missionary goals of what many view as a false religion? Is it legitimate for those Americans to take these questions into account in voting for a presidential nominee or candidate?”

I am, of course, anxious to hear Hugh Hewitt argue, again, that it’s a “myth” that Romney’s Mormon faith will be a “problem with the conservative right.”

Next up is a story out of Iowa about religion and locker rooms. (thanks to R.S. for the tip)

Which brings us to Iowa State University, currently embroiled in a controversy over whether its football team — at the request of its head coach — should be allowed a spiritual adviser. Some faculty members are upset at the idea, and more than 130 have signed a petition saying that such a position creates a serious violation of the separation between religion and government.

A panel that advises the university on athletics issues has voted, 7-1, in favor of the proposal. That recommendation now goes to Gregory Geoffroy, the university’s president, for consideration.

Pardon the expression, but the devil’s in the details. ISU football coach Gene Chizik has said publicly that he wanted to take the step because of his Christian beliefs and relationship with Christ.

After the 130 faculty members signed a document protesting a “spiritual guide” for student-athletes, my friends at Americans United weighed in, explaining to Geoffroy’s office, explaining that appointing a team chaplain would “send a message to members of the football team that their university expects and encourages them to engage in prayer and religious worship; and it would communicate to students, staff and alumni that the University believes that life’s problems necessarily call for spiritual guidance.”

Geoffroy apparently believes he’ll make everyone happy with a “compromise” — the team can have a “life-skills assistant,” instead of a “spiritual advisor.” The position will be paid for through private donations, and he or she will be prohibited from proselytizing.

We’ll see how that works out for everyone.

We need to find a way to nicely disengage religion from our government, even if it’s called “faith-based charity.”

As Teddy Roosevelt said in 1908;

If there is one thing for which we stand in this country, it is for complete religious freedom, and it is an emphatic negation of this right to cross-examine a man on his religion before being willing to support him for office.

  • Anti-Catholic bias? Catholicism is the one true apostalic church. If such a thing as anti-Catholic bias even exists, it is apostasy.

    Sheesh, I wouldn’t have thought this evens needs to be explained.

  • Anti-Catholic bias? Catholicism is the one true apostalic church. If such a thing as anti-Catholic bias even exists, it is apostasy.

    Sheesh, I wouldn’t have thought this even needs to be explained.

  • The question is not whether, as president, Mr. Romney would take orders from Salt Lake City. I doubt whether many people think he would.

    That Niehaus can say this demonstrates that he has not researched the operation of the Mormon Church. It is a primary article of faith in that religion that every member will follow the guidance of The Prophet – who is the President of the Church – in everything he says. On pain of excommunication. It is theocratically impossible for a Mormon to say, as John Kennedy did in 1960, that “… the pope does not speak for me…” For all believing Mormons, the “pope” does in fact speak for all.

    I don’t think religious bigotry has anything to do with someone coming to the conclusion that this system of belief is antithetical to the way we expect the President of a secular, constitutional Republic, to make his decisions. It’s fine for a Senator – one of 50 – or a Congressman – one of 435 – to make decisions that way, since their decision will not affect the country unless they can convince other non-believers of its value. We’re already seeing the disastrous results of having a man who listens to the guidance of religious leaders over the will of the people and imposes those beliefs by fiat on any issue you can mention. Another four years of that will sink us.

  • don’t pray in my schools (even if it is iowa state) and i won’t think in your churches!

  • In the old days, the separation between church and state was understood to protect the church as much as the state. A man’s religion becomes ‘fair game’ for examination if the campaigners believe that religion should control his political decisions.

    Promise not to use your religion to govern me, and you can believe any kooky thing you want at home. But if you want to use your religion in government, I get the right to examine the heck out of your religion first.

    Of course, in Romney’s case there are plenty of reasons to decide against him before one has to figure out the Mormonism thing.

    As for the other story, I think if Iowa State players wanted a spiritual advisor to help them play football, they should have gone to Notre Dame. Or Baylor. Or TCU. Or, well, you get the idea.

  • The questions are: Would a Mormon as president of the United States give greater credibility and prestige to Mormonism?

    After all, look how much Nixon did for Quakers.

  • Neuhaus argues honestly from a religious point of view. A traditional religion must, of necessity, claim preeminence. Within a year of his death, JP2 stated, to paraphrase, ‘that all non-Catholics are going to hell.’ That is the traditional Catholic doctrine as taught to me in school in the 50s. Of course, JP2’s embarassing statement mysteriously vanished almost as soon it was uttered. It is difficult to claim the absolute truth, while being tolerant of others. Ecumenism is a sophistical tactic employed to obscure the intolerance and irrationality of religion in an attempt to avoid or delay the inevitable conclusion that dogma is intolerant, unrevealed superstition.

  • actually, at the time of the writing of the u.s. constitution, some of the strongest backers of a wall between religion and the state were the baptists and other dissenters/non-conformists.
    several (if not many) of the colonies had established anglican churches supported by public money, and the “fringe” religions were against having to involuntarily support them.
    how times change, huh?

  • Regarding #8, I am not sure I agree. Neuhaus is a late convert to Catholicism and spouts better neoconservatism than theology.

    The biggest irony is that Neuhaus, along with PNAC loudmouth George Weigel, is a proponent of excommunication and witholding sacrements from Catholic politicians who do not toe the extremist line.

    -jjf

  • Who said it?

    “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

    Right. So STFU Mr. Neuhaus.

    Frankly, I think Mitt’s religion is irrelevant. There are things living in our basement that have a better chance of being elected than that jackass.

  • Romney’s a pragmatist (hence, his flip-flops), so I’m not worried about his religion. I’m more worried about the current 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. And I’m not talking about what the MSM refers to as the conservative-liberal or right-left split: the fact is, none of them is liberal or left in any sense of either term.

    I’m worried, rather, about the 5-member Roman Catholic majority. I can’t recall a time when a single authoritarian religion dominated the Supreme Court. Back when fears were expressed about a Roman Catholic president, John Kennedy as much as told the bishops to shut up, that we have a constitutional tradition separating church and state. In the decades since Kennedy’s presidency, actually since Roe v Wade in 1973, the Church of Rome has been meddling much more actively in governmental affairs, taking sides in elections, pressuring for legislation opposed by the vast majority of Americans, even Catholic Americans.

  • his Christian beliefs and relationship with Christ

    i think if you don’t say “personal relationship with his savior, Jesus Christ”, the lord smites you down or something

  • One thing to keep in mind about Neuhaus is that, up until 1991, he was a Lutheran minister. His grasp of the nuances of Catholic theology & traditions is not great and, in any case, takes a backseat to his neo-con political agenda. So, despite his conversion, he’s the last person to be thought of as a spokesperson for Catholicism.

    In the 60’s, he was an activist, anti-war street priest who preached social justice & liberation theology from his pulpit as pastor of St. John the Evangelist Lutheran Church in NYC. By the late 70s, however, he had gone over to the dark side, becoming affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, serving as religion editor at “The National Review,” and appearing frequently as a guest on William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line”(Buckley, btw, was instrumental in his ultimate conversion to Catholicism). At this point, he is a full-blown neo-con & member of Opus Dei (like that other Catholic convert, Clarence Thomas). The minister who preached that Vietnam was an unjust war, now readily provides theological justifications for the US’s neo-con inspired militaristic adventurism. Basically, he’s a rightwing fundamentalist in a Roman collar.

  • It took centuries for the Catholics to finally accept theirs was not the only route to heaven and any other religion was a false religion. Still its clergy has an agenda to promote its beliefs so anything out of this priest’s mouth must be taken with a grain of catholic salt.

    I would much prefer religion not even be mentioned in the campaigns. I’m much more interested in a candidates morality and character since it has been demonstrated that a president can be religious and still wage an unnecessary war killing many innocent men women and children.

    Religions vary but morality is universal and good character is constant.
    In Catholicism sins can be venial or mortal so lying is just a small sin…get it? Whereas in morality lying is lying.

    In politics, religion is just another club used to protect or to crush opponents and friends. It should not be an issue in modern politics because it amounts to just another grab for power.

    There is one religion however in which I am a proud member that is totally functional in Politics. In fact, it works anywhere.
    It’s known as “Secretism”. It’s principles are simple. You ask for guidance direction and protection in secret and the answers will come in secret under one condition…that you must never reveal the secret answers that come to you. If anyone asks you tell them these principles and swear them to secrecy. It is all very personal and is between you and your inner secret self. And in the mean time you just try to do the next right thing.

    In politics it reads,…”What religion do you belong to?”
    “Secretism”.
    “And what is that?”
    “I can’t tell you. Its a secret. And you must learn your own. Next question…”

  • #14 is dead on. Fr. Wacky even once wrote about possibly needing an armed revolution.

    #12 – FWIW, I’m worried too. And, unlike Fr. Wacky, I’m a livelong Catholic. It isn’t just that they are Catholic, but a very strange and assymetric form of Catholicism I sometimes refer to as Catholicism without Christ. This, of course, is a sin on my part (Judge not…) but it does appear that they think that Luke was indicating that we should mimic the Pharisee, not the tax collector. All accept Weigel, George seems to think that the point of Gospel is to be Roman…

    -jjf

  • Iowa bull…Always amazed how after a victory somebody says, ” I wanna thank the lord for leading us to victory” whild the losers say how they should have played harder. How come no one ever “thanks the lord” for defeat and failure. I mean if he caused one , he must have caused the other. “So it was your god that made you win….”…My god’s better than your god, my god’s better than your god” “We must have been holier than our opponents today.”

    Hey, it rains on the good and bad alike. Stop using Jesus as a coach or a lawyer. Next we’ll be heading into might is right, god is only on the side of the winners bullshit. If it’s a state funded school then keep religion out of it…period.

    Also, are you sure Neuhaus didn’t get ordained in Puerto Rico, because I’m sure this is where he first became convinced he wanted to be a priest…so he could get in on the torture the “right” is so found of. Or is he just a supporter of the “Crusades ” now refered to as the “splurge”….just saying..

  • Agree with MIchael, #8. I think the argument Neuhaus puts forward is quite reasonable, if you truly believe that people can only be saved through your religion. Then you have a moral obligation to prevent the spread of other religions. Of course, this can be taken all the way to killing those others, so it’s a very nasty premise, isn’t it?

    But I think we might compare it to, say, a divorcee being president. That promotes the message that divorce is okay.

    Or, for something the left can relate to, a member of the KKK is president. That promotes the message that the KKK is okay.

    Heck, I can think of liberals who seem to think that it doesn’t matter how liberal Wes Clark is, the fact that he was once a general disqualifies him from consideration.

    It all depends on what is most important to you.

  • Hey, it rains on the good and bad alike. — bjobotts, @17

    Not so 🙂

    The rain, it raineth on the just
    As well as on the un-just fella.
    But mostly on the just. Because,
    The un-just stole the just’s umbrella.

    (Hillaire Belloc ?) Not that you’re not right. Just sayin’…

  • Tom Cleaver (#4),

    You say, ” It is a primary article of faith in that religion that every member will follow the guidance of The Prophet – who is the President of the Church – in everything he says. On pain of excommunication.”

    You are 100% wrong. We are not excommunicated for not following every word of the Prophet. There is no primary article of faith that says anything like that.

    Mitt Romney has every right to carry out the duties of his public office in the way that he feels best, separate from the Church. In fact, the very idea is preposterous. There are many members of the Church who hold public office, including Harry Reid. As Senate Majority Leader, Reid has influence over the whole country. Is Reid taking orders from the Prophet? Was Mitt Romney taking orders from the Prophet while he was Governor of Massachusetts? Mitt Romney and Harry Reid are political opponents. But if they must obey every word from the Prophet, why has one of them not been excommunicated? Why are they even allowed to take opposing political positions?

    One of the core beliefs of the Church regarding government is “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government…” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:9) If the Prophet were to give orders to Mitt Romney as President, it would constitute a violation of our doctrine.

    You say, “Niehaus…has not researched the operation of the Mormon Church.” In fact, it is you who has not done the research. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You are either a poser or a liar. Which is it?

  • Comments are closed.