Mitt Romney on Faith in America

 

In this posting I will interrupt my review of Polkinghorne’s views on science and religion to take notice of a few points in the speech, “Faith in America,” that Mitt Romney gave on Thursday. Romney takes precedence for the moment, not because of any powers he may have as a scientist or theologian, but because the possibility that he will be the next president of the United States is still a live one.

Romney spoke about the matter of the separation of church and state as follows:

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.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

 

I find interesting a comparison of what Romney has to say about the separation of church and state with what Amendment I to the Constitution does. Amendment I reads:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In the clauses bearing on religion, then, we are presented with two distinct theses:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

 

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

 

In Romney’s statement we are also presented with two distinct theses:

 

No religion should dictate to the state.

 

The state should not interfere with the free practice of religion.

 

The two sets of distinct theses do not fully coincide. Romney’s second thesis, prohibiting interference in religion, is actually stronger than the Constitution’s second thesis, prohibiting the prohibition of religion; his thesis would certainly imply its. I do not know whether there would be additional church and state problems were “interference” the legally operative word.

 

The two first items are less closely related, though they may be seen to be connected if one adds in a presupposition that the path to a religion’s dictating to the state would pass through the Congress. At any rate, I am very much in favor of the sentiment that “No religion should dictate to the state.”

 

What troubles me is that Romney, in speaking of those un-named persons who “seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God,” has created some straw-men, if I may. These straw-men would indeed be guilty of having taken “the notion of the separation of church and state … well beyond its original meaning.” In fact, any Congressional legislation that would “remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God” would clearly violate the immediately following provisions of Amendment I , which hold that, to state things expressly:

 

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

 

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

 

The problem with the demolition of straw-men is that it is all too easily taken, and all too often intentionally, to be the demolition of the real, flesh and bones-men to whom the straw-men bear some misleading resemblance.

 

The flesh and bones-men here are those who, in perfect keeping with the clause saying “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” would oppose the state’s making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” and so would oppose any effort at giving legal force to such sentiments as, say, the handy ones “We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.”

 

This is classical sophistry at work. And to the degree that it succeeds and the straw-men and the flesh and bones-men are confused with one another, those who, like Romney, confuse them are positioned to go on to make two arguments. The one holds that people who would oppose any effort at giving legal force to such sentiments as, say, “We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust,” would in fact “seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God” and thus would indeed be guilty of having taken “the notion of the separation of church and state … well beyond its original meaning.”

 

The other argument holds that those who favor efforts that would give legal force to sentiments like “We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust,” would in fact be seeking merely to keep the acknowledgment of God in the public domain and thus would not be guilty of having taken “the notion of the separation of church and state … well beyond its original meaning.”

Some notes in conclusion: the speech’s force relies on ambiguities in its understanding of its central terminology. To take note of what we find in the but two of the speech’s more than forty paragraphs quoted above, there is, for example, the expression, “public domain.” We have to distinguish the public domain, in which the any reasonable understanding of the First amendment would permit an acknowledgement of God, from the legal domain, in which the any reasonable understanding of the First amendment would forbid an acknowledgement of God. The legal domain is only a part of the public domain. To illustrate the difference concretely: while I am perfectly content to have Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., standing in the public common of my New England town and offering its good citizens religious literature, I reject the right of anyone to have citizens’ taxes paying for a Christmas display, or for an anti-Christmas display, for that matter.

The statement, “It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism,” cries out for its own discussion. I’ll have to content myself here with two points. One is that any “religion of secularism” is a religion in a sense very different from the religions of, say, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. The religion of secularism would as a matter of principle base its theses on reason and evidence, while religions in the latter sense base their central theses, as a matter of principle, on faith, and not on reason and evidence. Another is that we have to distinguish the attempt at persuading, in the public domain, people that the secular path is the path to follow, from any attempt at having Congress establish a “religion of secularism.”

 

Again, the statement, “in God, we do indeed trust,” with its unqualified use of “we”, is either false or, interpreted charitably, ambiguous. If its intent really is to say that “we all” or “all of us” trust in God, then it is false, for those who do not believe that there is a God, and there are at least some such people, certainly do not trust in God. The only way it could be true would be if its intent were somehow to say that “some of us” trust in God. That is a fact well worth noting. As, however, a de facto truth, it has no logic bearing on what is true de jure.

 

Finally, it needs to be understood that, while the Declaration of Independence does make mention of “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “Divine Providence,” the Constitution does not. It further needs to be understood that, while the Constitution enjoys legal standing, the Declaration of Independence, for all its historical importance, does not. “We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust” has no constitutional warrant.

 

I found Romney’s speech at:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/faith_in_america.html