Sunday, October 07, 2007
The Pendragon is currently engaged in reading one of the most enjoyable books I have read in a very long time. Jon Meacham's "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation" is an enjoyable look at America's religious history that surprisingly succumbs to neither extreme interpretation. Meacham argues that the American gospel--"literally the good news"--is that religion informs our public life without dominating it. While many of the Founders and many public leaders throughout history have been orthodox, or semi-orthodox, Christians, they have used their faith to heal wounds, not create them. Meacham wins points for admitting the Christian worldview of many of our leading statesmen, but he also notes that they championed religious freedom, promoting something he calls "the public religion of America," a belief in God that is left free to the conscience of every man, woman, and child. This, he believes, is something to be celebrated. He also takes a hard swing at the leftist crowd that would have us believe the Founders were all atheist and agnostic and wanted nothing to do with Christianity. The "separation of church and state" was intended to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion. In this view, America was never a Christian nation, except insofar as it was a nation made up of Christians. This will no doubt lose him points with the religious right, but the Pendragon agrees--is any nation really a Christian nation? God saves individuals not entire nations. So Meacham urges Americans to embrace their public religion--full of belief in "Nature and Nature's God" as the Declaration of Independence would have it--but recognize the value of religious freedom beqeathed by many who were themselves believers. People must be free to choose their own way. Any religion must prove itself to the people--the government will not thrust it upon them.
This is a welcome lesson from history as we face the 2008 election. Meacham recounts the story of how William Howard Taft was attacked by his opponent William Jennings Bryan in the 1908 election (Sam Brownback flashbacks anyone?) for his Unitarian beliefs. (I now add Taft to the list of the unorthodox which includes Jefferson, the Adamses, Lincoln and Reagan.) Outgoing president Theodore Roosevelt, himself a committed Christian in the George W. Bush mold, lashed out at Taft's accusers, saying, "The only questions should be, Is he a good man? Is he fit for office?" Amen and amen. The reason any raising of Mitt Romney's Mormonism troubles the Pendragon (and the cover story of last week's "Newsweek" did just that) is that I am far from sure Christians should want a religious litmus test applied to presidential candidates. Today, we may be rejecting a Mormon--how far before we reject a Catholic, a Jew, an evangelical? Secularists love to see Romney scuttled by Christians--they're one step closer to applying a non-religion litmus test of their own. The question should be, Is he a good man? Is he fit for office? The answer to both questions is, "Yes." A president is not a spiritual leader. But while we are floating around the subject, should anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ be head of a huge global Christian denomination? No, of course not. Yet Bishop Spong is the Archbishop of Canterbury, author of several books on how the Bible can't be trusted. Should the leader of one of the world's fastest growing Christian sects be publicly admitting that anyone who lives a good life can go to heaven, regardless of whether they accept Jesus or not? Certainly not. Yet Pope John Paul II said just that in a speech in 2001. In those cases, it is indeed a travesty to have people who deny the fundamental truths of the Gospel in those positions. Yet people are less worked up about that than they are about having a Mormon for president. The question asked of any presidential candidate should be whether their faith makes them the sort of person we want to have for president. If you have honestly answered in the negative about Romney, then by all means do not vote for him. But if you agree that he is a good man and fit for office, do not let his faith hang you up. Mormonism spurs on a man who is patriotic, upright, committed to his family, a hardworker, frugal and well-organized. Why can't he be President?
This is a welcome lesson from history as we face the 2008 election. Meacham recounts the story of how William Howard Taft was attacked by his opponent William Jennings Bryan in the 1908 election (Sam Brownback flashbacks anyone?) for his Unitarian beliefs. (I now add Taft to the list of the unorthodox which includes Jefferson, the Adamses, Lincoln and Reagan.) Outgoing president Theodore Roosevelt, himself a committed Christian in the George W. Bush mold, lashed out at Taft's accusers, saying, "The only questions should be, Is he a good man? Is he fit for office?" Amen and amen. The reason any raising of Mitt Romney's Mormonism troubles the Pendragon (and the cover story of last week's "Newsweek" did just that) is that I am far from sure Christians should want a religious litmus test applied to presidential candidates. Today, we may be rejecting a Mormon--how far before we reject a Catholic, a Jew, an evangelical? Secularists love to see Romney scuttled by Christians--they're one step closer to applying a non-religion litmus test of their own. The question should be, Is he a good man? Is he fit for office? The answer to both questions is, "Yes." A president is not a spiritual leader. But while we are floating around the subject, should anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ be head of a huge global Christian denomination? No, of course not. Yet Bishop Spong is the Archbishop of Canterbury, author of several books on how the Bible can't be trusted. Should the leader of one of the world's fastest growing Christian sects be publicly admitting that anyone who lives a good life can go to heaven, regardless of whether they accept Jesus or not? Certainly not. Yet Pope John Paul II said just that in a speech in 2001. In those cases, it is indeed a travesty to have people who deny the fundamental truths of the Gospel in those positions. Yet people are less worked up about that than they are about having a Mormon for president. The question asked of any presidential candidate should be whether their faith makes them the sort of person we want to have for president. If you have honestly answered in the negative about Romney, then by all means do not vote for him. But if you agree that he is a good man and fit for office, do not let his faith hang you up. Mormonism spurs on a man who is patriotic, upright, committed to his family, a hardworker, frugal and well-organized. Why can't he be President?
// posted by The Pendragon @ 11:06 PM 
