In his "Faith in America" speech, Gov. Mitt Romney said, among other things:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Is this true? Over at Balkinization, Jack Balkin says that this statement (and some others) in the speech "strongly identify Americans and Americanism with belief in God." Is this true?
For starters, it is (obviously) not the case that only those persons who believe in God (or who, in Gov. Romney's words, "believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind") are or can be good Americans. It is certainly not the case that only such persons desire, deserve, and sacrifice for "freedom"; or that only a political community consisting primarily of such persons can be "free."
I do not know exactly what Gov. Romney intended to communicate or claim with the statement that "[f]reedom requires religion". If he intended to claim with that statement what (it sounds like) Prof. Balkin understands him to have claimed, he was mistaken. (It seems to me unlikely, though, that Gov. Romney believes that only theists -- or Mormons, for that matter -- are or can be good Americans.)
That said, I believe that it is true -- or, at least, that there is a sense in which it is true -- that political "freedom requires religion." To be clear: It is not true that a political community of religious people will, necessarily, be "free"; or that a political community in which most people do not believe in God cannot be "free"; or that religious believers will always cherish, protect, respect, or even understand political freedom. (I assume that Prof. Balkin and I agree entirely about all this.)
All that said, it seems to me that the existence and maintenance of political freedom does depend on -- i.e., does "require[]" -- "religion" in the sense that political freedom requires not merely constitutional or other legal limits on government power and official action, but also that (and a consensus that) the aims, sphere, authority, purpose, reach, and nature of the state -- of politics -- be limited, by something else. That is, it is crucial to political freedom that -- in Harold Berman's words -- it not be "for the secular authority alone to decide where its boundaries should be fixed" and that -- as John Courtney Murray put it -- there be "room for the independent exercise of an authority which is not that of the state." And, it seems to me that "religion" is best, and perhaps only, able to satisfy (even though, of course, it has often failed badly to satisfy) these requirements. (I tried to flesh out this idea in this short paper.)
What do others think? Is this, or something like this, plausible?
I cannot emphasize this enough: To suggest this is not, at all, to say that only religious people understand the value of, and cherish, freedom-under-and-through-limited-government. None of this is intended to be -- or, objectively, is -- exclusionary, triumphalist, "theocratic", or "Christianist." Nor am I claiming that these thoughts of mine capture or reflect what Gov. Romney intended to say. I do not know, exactly, what he indended to say. (Disclosure: I am a member the Thompson campaign's Law Professors Committee.)
Yesterday’s The New York Times [HERE] published an article entitled “Boy Scouts Lose Philadelphia Lease in Gay-Rights Fight.” In the 1920s the City of Philadelphia allowed the Scouts to build a building on a small plot of municipal land in the Center City charging the Scouts a nominal $1 per year for rent. As I understand the situation, the City did nothing to build the structure, it merely provided the land. However, over the last several years, gay-rights advocacy groups have pressured the City of Philadelphia to pressure the Scouts to change their membership regulations to embrace gay members. As MOJ readers will recall, the Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale held that the Scouts did not have to changer their membership regulations. The Court noted that forced membership is unconstitutional if the person seeking membership, in this case a gay scout, would affect in a significant way the organization’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The viewpoint in contention in this Philadelphia case is, to quote Stacey Sobel, executive director of Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, a gay-rights advocacy group, is to send a message that the city disapproves of their views. As this person was quoted, “We are not looking to kick the Boy Scouts out. We just want them to play be the same rules as everyone else in the city.” And the same rules means for Equality Advocates Pennsylvania that the Scouts must change their membership policies which the Supreme Court of the United States has declared are constitutionally protected. So much for the Constitution and the liberties it protects.
It is odd to me, and perhaps others, that Equality Advocates Pennsylvania would most likely support the liberties found by the Court in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court relies on the famous mystery passage of Planned Parenthood v. Casey— there is “a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter… At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe, and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” But Equality Advocates Pennsylvania do not wish the Boy Scouts to exercise their constitutionally protected liberties as long as they conflict with the objectives of this gay-rights organization. Equality Advocates Pennsylvania have a powerful ally amongst some members of the Philadelphia City Council who, in ex post fashion, have used the authority of the state to pressure the Scouts to abandon their beliefs and their liberties.
It would seem that the liberty demanded by some is not to be extended to the Scouts. But Equality Advocates Pennsylvania insists that they do not want “to kick the Boy Scouts out.” They just want the Boy Scouts to believe, or at least accept the beliefs that they hold. The method to be used is this: put economic pressure on the Scouts by threatening to take away the land on which their building rests. King Henry VIII used a similar tactic in pressuring Church institutions to accept his views on marriage. Those who did not subscribe to his views lost their property and were put out on the street. For the King, the views that differed from his were “a canker in the body politic, and he would have it out.”
In both of these instances, we see an exercise of totalitarianism. The totalitarianism of today, like its predecessors in the sixteenth and twentieth centuries, is a type of dictatorship that relies and insists on a centralized, universal control of all or many aspects of life including innermost convictions. The totalitarian state can conjure up means of ensuring public endorsement of its control demanding uniform support by all over whom it exercises dominion. This is what the Philadelphia City Council is doing to the Scouts. The threat of eviction of the Scouts is designed to guarantee cohesion within society and is an important component of the totalitarian state. Nonetheless, in spite of these efforts at universal, central control, there often remain elements of the society, such as the Scouts, that preserve a moral force and function as a counterpoint to the pressure of the state. But by pursuing their goals, the Scouts face a kind of persecution and annihilation when targeted by the state’s enforcement mechanism.
Christopher Dawson spent a career studying conscience, religious belief and faith, and public life noted that in more modern times Christianity needed to become an underground movement. He recognized that not only the totalitarian state but even the modern “democratic” state “is not satisfied with passive obedience; it demands full co-operation from the cradle to the grave.” This obedience can be essential if anyone or any group is to avoid being “pushed… out of physical existence.” In the context of the Boy Scout case in Philadelphia, Dawson’s words from the first half of the twentieth century may be an accurate prophecy for the world of the early twenty-first century.
The views and beliefs that are targeted today need not be held by a few isolated individuals since they can and likely are held by many other persons. In this context, the hallmark of the totalitarian regime is its plan to eradicate beliefs and acts that may be held by many individuals and are often considered mainstream. Surely this is the case in Philadelphia. These are not only interesting times, they are challenging as well. And how should these challenges be met? With resignation? With defiance? Or, with the reasoned arguments previously advanced by the Scouts of their constitutionally protected belief? I think it is the latter. And, when people of good will understand what is afoot, I pray that the Scouts will receive the support of many public officials and citizenry alike. If the liberty of Mr. Lawrence is to be protected, so must that of the Boy Scouts of America—and, for that matter, everyone else. RJA sj
This new book -- by Pepperdine law prof and law-and-religion expert Bob Cochran -- looks good: In "Faith and Law", "legal scholars from sixteen different religious traditions contend that religious discourse has an important function in the making, practice, and adjudication of American law, not least because our laws rest upon a framework of religious values. The book includes faiths that have traditionally had an impact on American law, as well as new immigrant faiths that are likely to have a growing influence. Each contributor describes how his or her tradition views law and addresses one legal issue from that perspective. Topics include abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, immigrant rights, and blasphemy and free speech."
Contributors include our own Patrick Brennan, as well as Bob Tuttle, Tom Shaffer, Brett Scharffs, David Caudill, and many others.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Prof. Doug Kmiec (who is an advisor to Gov. Romney) -- about whose essay I blogged yesterday -- asked me to post the following, and I am delighted to do so:
The speech -- A Reason to Put Faith in Governor Romney
Mitt Romney gave the speech many of us wish John Kennedy had.
John Kennedy is a hero for me. My first foray into politics was as a child with my father campaigning for JFK in Chicago. Sporting a button that said “if I were 21, I’d vote for Kennedy,” I meant it then, and now when so many years have past, it is difficult to remember 21, let alone a younger age.
So to say that Romney did Kennedy one better is not in any way to denigrate the memory of the young, vibrant president whose vision and idealism still inspire.
But Kennedy handled the so-called Catholic issue largely by separating himself from Catholicism. In this, Kennedy would say “the separation of church and state is absolute,” and that the statements of his church were “rarely relevant to any situation in” America. Said Kennedy: I do not consider myself bound by church statements with regard to “my public acts – why should you?”
Kennedy sought acceptance upon the ground of secularism. Romney’s common ground is different, and it is that of America’s founders. What matters is not how a man worships, but that he worships. Said George Washington: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
When Kennedy spoke in Houston, he wanted to change the subject. When Romney returned to Houston, he embraced it. Kennedy began his talk by saying there are far more critical issues to speak of – hungry children, old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, and America with too many slums and too few schools. Sadly, almost a half century later, those critical issues remain with us, but if we are going to meaningfully address them, we cannot separate ourselves from the meaning that faith provides. We need our greatest ingenuity – our reason, but reason and faith are collaborators, not antagonists. As Romney put it, “we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends.”
No doubt some will say that Romney failed to address whatever differences there may be between the Mormon tradition and that of other faiths. But then, exploring those theological questions would have been entirely inappropriate. Kennedy didn’t attempt to justify the unique doctrines of the Catholic Church either. Said JFK it is not my purpose to explain “what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America believe in.” Romney affirmed, noting that to make such explanation would be to contradict the very guarantees of religious freedom and against religious tests for public office. “ No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths,” Romney said eloquently.
Yet, Faith does matter, said Romney, to “those American values ... lived in my religion [and] yours.” Honoring God and love of neighbor prompted, he said, his father to “march with Martin Luther King. . .and provide compassionate care to others . . .” and with humility, guides him and his wife, Ann, in his marriage and family” today.
Inevitably, it will be asked was Romney’s speech as effective as Kennedy’s? Yes, but for different reasons. Kennedy said his faith wouldn’t matter, but then acted as if it did, especially in civil rights. Romney said his faith would “inform [his] presidency” in those subtle ways that every great President from Lincoln to Kennedy would unquestionably affirm. Today’s speech supplied ample reason to entrust him with that office.
I do not know enough to know what the political effects of Gov. Romney's speech will be. I tend to agree with Prof. Kmiec, though, that its content was better than then-Sen. Kennedy's. (Though, to be fair -- as Ken Woodward points out -- the Kennedy speech was given in a dramatically different context.) That said, and all things considered, I think Gov. Romney would have done well to make clear that a crucial dimension of religious liberty is the freedom not to profess a religion at all. (I do not doubt that he believes this.) (Full disclosure: I am a member of Sen. Thompson's "Law Professors Committee.")
