Bottom Line: Geraghty is not wrong to mention political problems Romney’s religion might raise, but it is imprudent (at least) to mention details of this bigotry without clearly labeling it as such.
Hugh Hewitt and Jim Geraghty have been debating how best to discuss religion in politics.
Watching the blog gods war is always disturbing, especially when the blog gods fighting are ones that are usually friendly to our little community here at Scriptorium.
Philosophers don’t usually have much they can contribute to the practical politics that Hewitt and Geraghty know so well, but we can sometimes help clarify terms.
Two ritual disclaimers: I have written a great deal on this topic and believe that a discussion of religious beliefs need not be bigotry. Second, if the primary was to be held today I would vote for Mitt Romney.
The United States is a very religious nation, but it has a leadership class that is more secular than the general public. Just as different religions can struggle with prejudices, so do secularists. One prevalent prejudice of the American secularist class is to associate “reason” or “normalcy” with secularism.
Secular bigots believe only the secular are reasonable.
I watch this bigotry impact the lives of my bright, religious students. They have an extra hurdle to cross that peers without strong religious beliefs do not have in gaining acceptance inside the halls of power.
To pretend that this is not so is naïve . . . like pretending that African-American candidates do not “over poll” because of bigotry that is not expressed to pollsters about race. Just as repeating racist or ethnocentric stereotypes (even to denounce them) must be done with care in order to avoid perpetuating them, the same care must be take with harmful stereotypes about religion.
There are open bigots who express their anti-religious views openly. I once invited an editor of a Gannet newspaper to speak and heard her tell a group of Pentecostal students that if they spoke in tongues they had beliefs that made them too irrational to be President. Then there are the soft bigots who will take complicated religious ideas out of their context and hold them up to ridicule while pretending to merely be giving information.
“Can you believe this Fatima thing?”
“Look at a film clip of this Assembly of God healing service!”
“Are Left Behind Christians hoping to bring on the end of the world?”
In a culture where religious education has been functionally banned from government schools, ignorance about religion is wide spread in the culture. Making a list of unusual beliefs held by a religious group without giving the context can be assumed to be playing into a vast sea of ignorance and loathing amongst large numbers of Americans in the “decision making” classes.
There is also, sadly, a good deal of ignorance (and even fear) about the religious “other” in Americans . . . at least in part because the secular schools forbid frank and open exchanges of information and ideas about religion.
Of course, Geraghty has the right to say as he pleases, but that does not make it prudent or even proper. He would never pass on anti-Semite or racist code words without denouncing them as such. In the same way, it is improper to pass on anti-Mormon code words (such as weird) without pointing out that those that use them are acting improperly.
Mormons have faced public prejudice in the past so this is not an empty topic.
(As theology, I think Mormonism wrong. I do not think Mormonism is Christian in the strong sense of the term, but I think my theological differences, which are very, very great with Mormonism are not relevant to my vote for President in the case of Mitt Romney.)
It is not bigotry to mention a man’s religious beliefs in politics if he uses them (as he should) to determine his basic view of reality. Only those religious beliefs that impact his political ideas and his governing style are relevant. Introducing any other ideas (Look at his funny hat! What did you say she believes about communion?) within a leadership class already given to the soft bigotry of secularists against the religious is imprudent.
One can aid bigots without being one.
If papers like the New York Times and large elements of the blogosphere were in the hands of open racists, then any good person would avoid giving them ammunition for their evil. But papers like the Times and much of the secular blogosphere are in the hands of folk with a soft bigotry that gives traditionally religious people an extra burden of proof when it comes to rationality.
Geraghty seems like a good man and deserves the benefit of the doubt. However, bigotry against serious religious people is prevalent in the secular leadership class of the United States. Unlike racism or ethnocentrism, it is tolerated in polite company and things are said about the traditionally religious that would never be tolerated about other groups. As a result, Geraghty should be careful not to play into the hands of real bigots who work at places like the New York Times.