New School Politics

Atheists, Agnostics need not apply

Ryan | 8 12 2007

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Peggy Noonan writes:

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.

It was very gratifying to read this from Ms Noonan. Remember, she’s hardly one of the faithless either. She is a devout catholic, biographer of Pope John Paul II, and was a top Reagan aid and speechwriter–a consistent conservative, by all means.

To recap, Romney’s speech played out very well and it looks to be a political success. First, he looked very presidential, and, second he sent a positive message to American Evangelicals, among others. His basic message: candidates should not be judged on personal religious denominations, but rather on their underlying faith. Of course, this implicates secularists as well as the 1 out of 10 Americans who doubt God’s existence.

The obvious political goal is to juxtapose his piety versus the impiety of assorted secularists instead of his Mormonism versus traditional American Christianity. It is cunning politics, but it is exploitative. Under the facade of religious accommodation, Romney is simply trying to divert the conflict. Despite the fact that the speech has been compared to JFK’s of 1960, Romney is no JFK. Kennedy was the most ardent believer in separation of church and state as well as separation of church and politics while Romney is trying to court the religious right on their moral terms.

David Brooks writes in the NYT:

From Neuhaus, Romney borrowed the conviction that faith is under assault in America — which is the unifying glue of social conservatism. He argued that the religious have a common enemy: the counter-religion of secularism.

He insisted that the faithful should stick stubbornly to their religions, as he himself sticks to the faith of his fathers. He insisted that God-talk should remain a vibrant force in the public square and that judges should be guided by the foundations of their faith. He lamented the faithlessness of Europe and linked the pro-life movement to abolition and civil rights, just as evangelicals do.

In his speech he recounted Sam Adams call for faith among the founders in time of crisis. However, many of the founders not only framed this nation in the image of a secular state but also questioned the existence of God out-right. There was no Christian consensus among the founders, many were probably not even Christian. James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson were probably among these men. The third president, for instance:

“Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you” (Jefferson’s Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).

In 1797, the US Senate unanimously ratified the Treaty of Trippoli, which addresses the non-religious nature of America bluntly:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The fact of the matter is that non-believers are a part of the American family, Mitt Romney’s speech notwithstanding. Secularists have made significant contributions to America from the beginning, and as they were treated on the merits of their reason and platforms from the time of Jefferson, they should be still today.

ADDENDUM: Zach has recently shown me a story in which a Romney spokesperson will not say whether atheists are part of the American family.