Nice Try, Mitt, But You're No Jack Kennedy

Lloyd Bentsen's "You're no JFK" Zinger


The late, great Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX), ladies and gentlemen! What a great zinger he used to nail Dan Quayle and keep him from getting away with shamelessly trying to compare himself to the late President John F. Kennedy.

That same zinger would have worked in reference to another Republican White House hopeful this week. I'm referring to the one and only Mitt Romney who, when confronted by the surging poll numbers of another conservative white male evangelical Christian, decided that it was time to publicly embrace his Mormon faith and let all America know what he's made of.

The speech was made from the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in Houston. Now, given that George the Elder was a one-term wonder and much-reviled by the rabid conservative base of the Republican Party, you have to wonder why Mitt chose to give his speech from Poppy's place, and not from the Temple of the Great and Powerful Ron in California. Actually, it's not so hard to figure out, given that Romney and his staff have been telegraphing how his speech would mirror John F. Kennedy's epochal speech on his Catholic faith and his vision for America, given on Sept. 12, 1960, before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.

So, is Mitt a Latter Day JFK, or the Second Coming of Dan Quayle? Here's how some of his comments and observations stack up against those of JFK.


Freedom of Religion AND Freedom From Religion

JFK: "I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice (emphasis added)."

Mitt: "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."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Kennedy had the balls to acknowledge that the bedrock strength of American liberty lies not in its supposed Judeo-Christian moorings, but rather in the fact that it is a value that can be equally espoused and exercised by the religious and non-religious alike. American Freedom does NOT rely or depend upon religion: it depends upon each citizen's commitment to the principles espoused in the Constitution. This in turn does not require religious faith on the part of any citizen who supports these. Mitt's nonsense line that "freedom requires religion" is nothing but a shamless, open-mouthed kiss for fundamentalist, Evangelical Christianity.

A TRULY United States

JFK: "I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

Mitt: "Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Mitt is dishonestly distorting the issue at hand here. No, you do not define your campaign for president by your religion (Mormonism, right?), but by religion itself. Romney's self-comparison to JFK is disingenuous, in this case because Kennedy avoided the use of religious themes altogether in his campaign for the White House. He enunciated a vision of a truly United States, whereas Romney's vision of America is clearly and explicitly one where religious citizens are valued more than those who espouse no religious creed or belong to any established faith. I guess some animals are more equal than others, huh Mitt?

Faith As Personal, Private Conviction

JFK: "But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election."

Mitt: "There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Funny, for a candidate who has staked so much of his campaign and presidential persona upon the importance of religious faith, Romney didn't spend any of his time during his twenty minute speech actually discussing or describing any of these beliefs at all. Again, his aping of JFK is disingenuous, as Kennedy scrupulously avoided the use of religious imagery and themes as means to winning votes.

Fighting for American Freedom

JFK: "This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe."

Mitt: [Cue crickets.]

Unkosher Jesus sez: This would be the place where I would write about how Mitt reflected upon his military service and how he views this experience as the time when the ideals of American freedom were,... well, you get the idea. Mitt didn't serve in the United States military. He was draft age during the Vietnam War, but, like most of his Republican brethren, somehow avoided fighting in that conflict (or serving in the military at all). He seemed to have had other priorities, just like his Chicken Hawk Vice President, Dick Cheney. And, just for the record, none of his five supposedly able-bodied sons is serving in Iraq.

Know Your Founding Fathers

JFK: "And in fact, this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom."

Mitt: "There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Mitt has been taking "Straw Man" lessons from W. Who, exactly, has said that "religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of weighty threats"? Who the hell is he talking about? This is a particularly defensive and divisive comment to make for someone who is trying to show that his religious faith does not pose any type of threat to American values. Worse yet, Romney misrepresents the Founding Fathers' notion of religious freedom, intentionally omitting the part about equal freedom not to practice religion. Maybe I'll give JFK the last word on that one:

"I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office."

So, is Mitt a Latter Day JFK? Not even close. Is he the Second Coming of Dan Quayle? He's worse! Quayle was truly ignorant and shallow, while Mitt is running a campaign premised on the hope that most voters are.

- Doug L.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: A Tribute


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Text of Romney's "faith in America" speech (Salt Lake Tribune, December 6, 2007)

The Mormons (PBS Frontline)

Bloggers on Mitt Romney's big speech (Slate.com, December 6, 2007)

Mitt's Big Speech (WashingtonMonthly.com, December 6, 2007)

Holy Nonsense, by Christopher Hitchens (Slate.com, December 6, 2007)

JPTV: What I'm Watching Tomorrow (Time.com, December 5, 2007)

Romney Loves All Gods, Hates All Seculars (Wonkette.com, December 6, 2007)

On Faith Panel: Mitt Romney's Religion Speech (Washington Post.com, December 6, 2007)

The Life of Romney, by Bruce Reed (The Has Been, Slate.com, July 5, 2007)

JFK In History: John F. Kennedy and PT109 (JFKLibrary.org)

Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular (Early America.com, Summer 1997)

Equal and Opposite Reactions

To paraphrase our fearless (and presumably clueless) leader, "Atheism is on the march!" And it would appear it has plenty to march against. Militant, right-wing Christianity in the West and radical Islam in the East have been gathering strength and exerting influence over politics and matters of war and peace for many years now. American culture is saturated with references to evangelical Christianity to the extent that suburban "churches" now resemble the shape and size of mega-stores like Wal-Mart, where Christian music, literature and other goods are offered at low, low prices. Always low prices.

For those who believe in God, human beings were made in God's image. Yet the world's myriad religious faiths and religions reflect a host of variant images. Which one should a given society reflect in order to perfectly capture the image of God him or herself? Here in the United States, the "Christian" Right is happy to supply that answer, as is the Taliban of Afghanistan and militant Hindus in India. This is all very comforting if you happen to be an American Evangelical Christian, a conservative male Afghan Muslim or an Indian Hindu. It is anything but if you happen not to subscribe to the respective state religions of any of these places, or any other country where one religion predominates the national discourse over policy and culture.

In my view, a religion ceases to serve its own inherent purpose, to even be a religion, when it crosses the line separating worship and service to proselytizing and imposition. In any pluralistic democratic society, no religion or faith-based organization can demand anything more reasonable than to be free to practice according to its traditions and rites. Insisting that public policy and common culture reflect these is beyond the pale, and it should come as no surprise that non-believers are becoming more vocal in opposition to the "Christian" Right's imposition of its values and beliefs upon all Americans.

There are some atheists or nontheists who have abandoned belief in God because they have lost faith in their given religious traditions. I personally don't see a direct correlation between losing faith in a given church or religion and abandoning my belief in God. Nonetheless, for my part I am happy to see nontheists and free thinkers banding together to counter the influence of the "Religious" Right. I have seen moderate and progressive Christian churches react in similar fashion, and encourage this as well. The Catholic Church for its part has remained dishearteningly quiet in the face of the growing influence of radical "Christianity" here in America. I fear this is due to the fact that the Church's agenda currently shares more in common with evangelicals than it does with its more progressive Protestant brethren. The Vatican remained silent in 2004 when American Catholic bishops refused to give communion to pro-choice Catholic legislators, most famously Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry. I've been straining my hears waiting to hear a peep of protest from these same bishops against Republican legislators who have supported the war in Iraq, who support the Bush tax cuts, who vote in support of gutting environmental and workplace safety regulations.

This is all to say that I wish to offer the "Christian" Right and radical "religious" extremists of all faiths a hearty and well-deserved congratulations and job well done. Your efforts have served to sully the name of religious faith and to galvanize a growing number of people in opposition to faith/belief in God. The societies where you strive to exert your influence are more divided for your efforts, while social problems such as poverty, crime and violence and environmental degradation continue to persist unabated. One closing question for you to reflect upon is: Do you honestly believe that this is what God wants from you? Have your efforts contributed in any way to the "peace and justice" that your faith presumably teaches and preaches?

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

"In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal." (Washington Post, September 15, 2007)

"In America, Nonbelievers Find Strength in Numbers." (Washington Post, September 15, 2007)

Rabbi Sherman T. Wine, 1928 - 2007 (Society for Humanistic Judaism.org)

"Time to Become Pre-Emptive Peacemakers." (Washington Post On Faith, September 14, 2007

"No Atheists (Still) Need Apply." (Washington Post On Faith, December 28, 2006)

The A-B-Cs of How NOT To Debate God's Existence

Much like the toddler who traps ants, spiders and bees in a jar to see who will win the ensuing battle, ABC News Nightline assembled combatants from either side of the great American religious divide to debate God's existence this past week. As if this particular American discussion hadn't gone off the rails years ago, ABC helped to push it a few feet further into the gutter by hosting a moot debate over a point that cannot be proven or disproven, scientifically or otherwise. Just like the toddler's insect battle royale, this contest was completely staged for entertainment value, pointless, and ugly to watch.

In the Atheists' corner we have Brian Sapient and Kelly. And in the True Belivers' corner we have Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Brian and Kelly are members of the Rational Response Squad, which recently sponsored a Blasphemy Challenge, providing young people with an online forum for denouncing and denying God's existence.

Kirk Cameron, of course, is the former teen star of the ABC sitcom Growing Pains, as well as the star of the apocalyptic Left Behind film series. Ray Comfort is a New Zealand-born street evangelist and founder of The Way of the Master, an anti-evolutionist/creationist "ministry" devoted to "proving" God's existence and the need for forgiveness and salvation through Jesus.

The premise for this Nightline event, the first such debate in its new "Face-Off" series, was to see which side could present the best argument for or against the existence of God. Kirk and Ray came out of their corner swinging hard, claiming to be 100% able to prove the existence of God through science, AND (listen up you religious-industrial complex types) without the need for faith. The Thunder from Down Under rattled off three primary proofs in support of his claim:

1. If something is made, there must have been a maker, a designer. Paintings, buildings, cars, etc., all must have had a maker. It is an insult to anyone's intellect to suggest that they just emerged out of nowhere. Comfort goes on to describe the intricacies of human physiology as absolute proof that the human race must have had an intelligent creator. Problem: There's nothing about Comfort's description of the miracle of the human body that can't be explained by evolutionary theory. And yet another hysterical fundamentalist completely misses the point that faith in God and belief in evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

2. Human beings have a Conscience, the distinct knowledge of right and wrong. The human sense of morality is that which separates us from the animals. However, according to Comfort, our conscience is "seared" on the outside, and the only thing that can bring it back to life is the Ten Commandments. Problem: Huh? I don't know what he exactly means by "seared," and therefore couldn't make any sense of his prescription of the Ten Commandments as a cure for this condition. I thought this state of the art non sequitur should have ended with the following punch line: "And so God said to Moses, 'Take these two tablets and call me in the morning.'" N'yuck, n'yuck, n'yuck.

3. If you seek conversion, God will reveal himself to you, and that is the ultimate proof. In this one moment you will have experiential knowledge of God's existence. Cry out, "God, I've violated your commandments," and you'll get the shock of your life. Problem: Right, OK- and I suppose anyone who doesn't get the shock of his or her life wasn't really trying, or didn't really believe that God would be revealed, or didn't really want it, whatever, etc., and so on.

In the end, I guess I just don't see how these arguments equate scientific proof of God's existence. Ray Comfort won't lose sleep if these aren't enough to convince you of the existence of God, though. That's because there are more than enough bananas around to seal the deal and win you over.

I won't take any time repeating the atheist rebuttal. I think I punched enough holes into Comfort and Cameron's "proofs" for one thing, and anyhow you can see the video online at the link provided below. You can also see more of Ray and Kirk at the Way of the Master Web site. I'll give you fair warning, though. If you visit this Web site, be sure to bring your credit card. Jesus may have given his message free of charge, but his modern day followers Ray and Kirk clearly deviate from the Way of the Master to the Way of the Master Card when it comes to "sharing" the Good News.

Moral of the Story: Belief in God is a matter of faith, not proof. I didn't need to watch Nightline to figure that out. The "debate" didn't do anything to either weaken or strengthen my faith in God, but it did rattle my faith in human beings, if just for a few moments. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

ABC Nightline, May 7, 2007

Rational Response Squad

The Way of the Master

How to End the World on a Budget: Slate.com, December 1, 2005

I'm Bananas for Jesus! t-shirt (CottonFactory.com)

Nonbelievers: They Walk Among Us! (Or, To Believe or Not to Believe)

"What thoughts do you have for those of us who find faith a difficult endeavor, who weren't raised with it and don't understand it? Are there certain types of people who are naturally predisposed to enjoy faith, and those who are not?"

An excellent pair of questions (submitted in response to a previous post) that underscore a very important point. The most obvious type of conundrum between people of different faith backgrounds is where these diverge on matters of religious belief. However, it puts a new twist on the tension inherent to interfaith relationships when one member of an interfaith couple doesn't have any religious beliefs, doesn't believe in God at all.

The question is, first, what thoughts do I have for those who have difficulty with even arriving at faith itself, understanding the need for it, the benefit of it? I think that is a hard question to answer. For someone who was not raised with any religious beliefs or spiritual practices in childhood, to seek these as an adult becomes a purely elective choice. This in turn begs the question: Why would anyone elect this option in the first place? Are some more predisposed to faith than others? I do not think that this is the case, although there are certainly holy, spiritual people throughout history whose life's work is a testament to a deep and abiding faith far greater than the average person's (e.g., Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Archbishop Oscar Romero). On average, though, I think that we all have the same capacity for faith and for skepticism or outright disbelief. Given that, again, what is it that draws some to believe?

There can be any number of ways that a non-believing adult arrives at the decision to pursue faith in God and the spiritual practices that support this endeavor. However, I would wager that most of them are superficial, incentives that spur the individual in the form of external events and pressures. For example, conforming one's behavior and adopting a religious faith to please a spouse, fiancé/fiancée or girlfriend/boyfriend. Nonbelieving people may sometimes turn to God when they are suddenly caught in extremis: faced with the diagnosis of a fatal, untreatable illness, imminent financial ruin, the dissolution of a years'-long relationship one's dearest and closest companion.

For my money, the most ideal starting place for one's faith journey is within the self. Whatever the source of the stirring that comes from within, it represents the self's own desire to seek out and to know God, or to at least explore the question of God's existence. Those things that the heart wants most, we will pursue with the most energy. We don't have to be told to want the things we want, and seeking to try to know and understand God is one of those things. You either want it or you don't.

Of course, our various faith traditions give us their versions of why it is important to acknowledge and worship God. It's just that, sometimes a religion's dogma gets in the way of our own dharma, in effect becoming a barrier unto itself and also to one's journey to exploring who and what God is. Sometimes religion gives us stuff that is just too hard to swallow or otherwise reconcile with a belief in an all-powerful and benevolent God. I personally think that this is where the skeptics get it right. No matter what faith traditions we come from, there is nothing about faith in God that says we're not allowed to question the teachings of any given religion. At one point Jesus said to the religious authorities of his day, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." In our present day this could also be read to mean that religion was established to serve the needs of people, people are not here to serve the needs of any given religion. The full truth of who or what God is far too vast for any one faith to contain in its teaching or practices. We are "interfaith" because obviously none of our respective traditions has won the "clearly we're right about God" contest. Both our beliefs and our non-beliefs are challenges to each other. But doesn't that make the journey more interesting?

I think that the moral of the story for interfaith homes is the importance of open and honest inquiry. Providing space for your spouse, fiancé/fiancée, girlfriend or boyfriend to talk about his or her faith or his or her lack of faith is an important means of growing closer. The more we understand each other, the more we understand our own selves. The more questions we are asked about our beliefs, the more we are required to take responsibility for and defend these. The more we model openness and respect for each others' beliefs, the more natural we become in making room for these in our homes, and the better role models we will be for any children that may join our families over time.

Sustaining faith in God is a matter of patience, prayer, contemplation, and active engagement in the human community. Establishing faith in God, recognizing and pursuing the desire to do so, is a matter of deep soul-searching, of questioning. Each person initiates his or her own journey of inquiry into the meaning of life. This doesn't mean we all end up in the same place belief-wise. Making room in our homes for each other’s respective search, as well as the space to discuss what we think we've found, helps to ensure that no matter where we end up on our respective journeys, we still travel together. Shalom.

-Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (Links Updated 05/27/07)

Essay on Faith (This I Believe, NPR)

Infidels.org (Atheism Web)

Beliefnet.com (Faiths and Practices)

Kurt Vonnegut: Free-Thinking American (NPR, All Things Considered, April 12, 2007)

15 Things Kurt Vonnegut Said Better Than Anyone Else Ever Has Or Will (The Onion A.V. Club, April 27, 2007)