Mitt Romney gives us further pause

An interesting (but politically predictable) thing about Mitt Romney's religion speech the other day (its text can be found on the New York Times web site) is that most religious people heard it differently from the way us non-religious people heard it. Romney offends non-religious Americans straight off by stipulating that our non-religion is actually the religion of secularism:

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.

Secularism of course is not a religion, any more than atheism is. Certain kinds of religious people seem unable to conceive of non-religion as an alternative. And that is precisely the problem. Romney seems to be trying to secure a favored niche for religion, to build for adherents of religion an all-powerful position from which to dominate the non-religious minority.

In her Dec. 7 letter to the editor of the Times, a reader from Bainbridge Island, WA also commented on that passage:

...the speech cited includes this incredible sentiment: "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."

In fact, Mitt Romney has it backward; we are a secular nation, a notion relied upon by our founding fathers who, in all their wisdom, would be appalled at what is today passing for proper presidential declarations.

We are not a theocracy, nor is it any of my concern whom the candidate prefers as his "personal savior." These professions of belief are irrelevant and disturbing, assuming as they do that religion and religious beliefs have a place in our polity.

Romney's speech seems to me to have been artfully contrived to seduce all of the religious people together into a mutual admiration society, to form a supermajority to lord it over us non-religious folks. Of course, his main objective is to try to get the support of the suspicious Christian right—some of whom deny that Mormonism is a Christian religion—in order to win his party's nomination for president. As the Editor of the Times wrote on Dec. 7:

Still, there was no escaping the reality of the moment. Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact. [The editorial, titled "The Crisis of Faith," can be found on the Times web site.]

A reader from Bailey, CO also wrote to the editor on Dec. 7:

It is hypocritical for Mitt Romney to say that this country was founded on freedom of religion and, on the other hand, to say that God must be part of public life. What about the citizens of this country who do not believe in the Christian God? What about people of no religious faith?

Are they not also citizens?

A person need not be Christian to be moral. It appears that this presidential campaign, at least on the Republican side, has become a contest over which candidate is more Christian than the others. Apparently, a candidate who does not profess to believe in the Christian God cannot be elected president of this country.

This is surely not what the founding fathers intended when they advocated the principle of separation of church and state.

Indeed, the crucial reason for the separation of church and state in the United States Constitution is to protect minorities from oppression. Not only are the followers of a particular religion in the minority relative to the rest of the population (and in need of constitutional protection from potential oppression for their religious beliefs), but so also are followers of no religion in need of protection.