OCR Text |
Show DAILY HERALD AS Sunday, December 9. 2007 EMIOEIAIS EDITORIAL BOARD Craig Dennis, President & Publisher Randy Wright, Executive Editor Jim Tynen, Editorial Page Editor IN OUR VIEW follow-u- p needs Romney speech itt Romney answered many questions in his speech Thursday on "Faith in America." But he raised a few as well, and we foresee a day when he will need to answer more clearly and forcefully, and for a wider audience what he thinks about the relationship between church and state. On Thursday, the Republican presidential hopeful mainly addressed the concerns of some evangelical voters about his LDS faith. He spoke well in highlighting the role of religion in his life and in the nation's history, while demonstrating that his faith fits squarely in the American tradition of tolerance and pluralism. Yet some critics said the former Massa- M chusetts governor was fuzzy and seemed to exclude secularists from his rousing picture of how religion has enriched America and helped preserve our freedoms. Romney could have made a sharper distinction between the roles of government and religion. He also could have stated clearly that while religion has shaped the nation, you dont have to believe in God to be included in the American vision. We are a secular nation that embraces all people of faith and those with none at all. Government must be utterly neutral in matters of religion, which means avoiding the appearance of favor toward a religious view. Icons favoring a religion should be left out of all aspects of American government. If you disagree, consider the following: A few years ago a judge raised a furor by posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as if to say that they superseded state law. No problem, you say? Then answer honestly: How would you feel if you were accused of a serious crime and a Muslim judge had posted parts of Islamic sharia law say the parts ordering the subjection of infidels and callbehind the bench? ing Jews apes and pigs If you're not a Muslim, and especially if you were Jewish, you wouldn't like it. This point applies to all manner of manifestations of religion in the mechanics of government. People who do not subscribe to any religious view should not be marginalized by a dominant majority with a orientation. Government property belongs as much to atheists as it does to believers. Religion and morality have played an essential role in American history, as Romney pointed out. But they have done so by influencing the hearts, minds and consciences of the people, not by dictating laws or commandeering jointly owned official assets. Romney stated forcefully that as president he would not take orders from Salt Lake City. This was met with a sneer by Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson, who told KSL Newsra-di- o that Romney is pandering to conservative Judec-Christi- Christians. "For any member of the LDS Church to say that they could disregard the leadership of the church, on basic issues that the church is taking a position on, I think is absolutely disingenuous," Anderson said. We hate to agree with Anderson, but he's right. Romney left himself open to such an attack because he failed to follow through the way that John F. Kennedy did in 1960 when he said he wouldn't take marching orders from the Vatican. Kennedy closed the loop. Romney: "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is ........ , "' """"""" ' ' i ; ' f ; - "Whatever issue may come "Let me assure you that no before me as president ... I will authorities of my church, or of any make my decision in accordance other church for that matter, will with these views, in accordance ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs without regard to outside religious of the nation begin." pressures or dictates." John Mitt Romney theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin." Kennedy: "I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as president on birth control, divorce, cenI sorship, gambling or any other subject will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide oth- erwise. "But if the time should ever come (and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible) when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." Romney made a point, but Kennedy made his unmistakably. If Romney's tone was too soft in this instance, in other areas he went too far. In praising the connection between liberty and religion, he commented on an ever more secular Europe and its empty cathedrals. But, as the Washington Post pointed out in an editorial, those societies have prospered as secular democracies. Then Romney noted: "The establishment of F. Kennedy state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches." He should have emphasized that point more. After all, it was precisely the avoidance of church-stat- e entanglement that allowed religion to flourish in this country. Romney's image of "a symphony of faith" is vibrant and still true despite today's national creep toward godlessness. Yes, some observers thought Romney's people. Perhaps speech excluded he should have taken more care to include them. But there are limits to speeches, and this one seemed aimed at one target audience. In other words, if you're an atheist, he wasn't talking to you, and what he did not say about the rights of atheists should not be taken as a signal that he believes you are unwelcome. That issue simply fell outside the scope of a speech whose object was to address the role of religion, not the role of secularism. Romney might now consider a fireside chat aimed at atheists. Clearly, the nation has benefited greatly from skeptics who scorned organized religion, traditional teachings and the from Thomas Paine to Mark supernatural Twain to Clarence Darrow. In our time, more and more people have joined their ranks. A study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that more than 3 percent of. Americans described themselves as agnostics or atheists. Another 7 percent are secularists, who have no religious affiliation, and few or no religious beliefs. If Romney does make it to the White House, more than 10 percent of the people he would govern fall outside the religious tradition he praises. We dont think for a moment that he intends to oppress or ignore atheists and secular humanists. But he really ought to explain his views about them more clearly. He was right when he said that separating church from state does not require the removal of religion from public life if he meant the lives of the people. But he was wrong to suggest that religious symbology should be endorsed in any manner by government. Because the government belongs to everyone equally, it has a particular duty to remain strictly neutral There is no room for tacit endorsements of a majority religious tradition, as our highest courts have properly and repeatedly ruled. Strict separation prevents no one from worship and should not be feared. It is a pernicious myth that when government becomes free of religion, it must be antagonistic toward religion. In truth it is government's very neutrality that fosters confidence in liberty and justice for all, even infidels. We agree with Romney that religion has an influential role to play in the political process. That is because people's core beliefs affect their desires and judgments. At the same time, religion does not belong overtly in our codes of law (though the code is clearly influenced by it), nor associated with public property. At bottom, "created equal" means that the atheist has as great a claim to America as the most devout churchgoer. As columnist Jonah Goldberg recently wrote, "Theology hasn't mattered that much to Americans. Mormons are a good example. Americans didn't want Utah to become a state because Mormon men took too many wives. Mormons dropped polygamy and bada bing Americans dropped their objections to statehood. ... It is the American way to care about what people do, not about what they think." This belief was seeded at the beginning of the American experience. Since then, the nation has proceeded along the line that religion may influence government without becoming an explicit part of it. ' It is a favorite pastime of some amateur historians to drop names and quotes of Christian leaders who helped create the nation and to conclude that America is therefore a "Christian nation." This is not true. The Founders were not a monolithic bloc; many were secular thinkers. And as a group they ' created a decidedly secular system. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, for example, helped prevent the adop-- . tion of Christianity as the national religion, as advocated by Patrick Henry and others. Later, in 1822, he wrote of the desirability of a "perfect separation" between church and state, noting that "religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." His words apply equally to a Quran in a courtroom and to a Ten Commandments monument in a public park in Pleasant Grove. We agree with Romney that religion and its underpinning morality have been of what is good in America. But he would be well advised to expand on his remarks. He needs to explain why those without religion should be regarded as second-clas- s citizens; or he needs to state clearly that the blessings of liberty are equally available to all people of every religion and of none. well-sprin- HERALD POLL The Herald Poll recently asked if a Utah Highway Patrol trooper Herald poll was justified in using a Taser stun gun on an argumentative motorist. Responses included: at the Respect the law Recently we asked the following question Daily Herald Web site, www.heraldextra.com: "Did a Utah Highway Patrol officer act improperly when he Tasered a motorist?" A terrorist? The patrol officer obviously stan- Nol Traffic overreacted by peace-tim- e dards. But since September 2001, stops can be dangerous, and things have changed a lot. Nowa- the motorist could a motorist a even be days, wasn't obeying a clear command. radical Islamic terrorist. Geoff Evans, 56 Orem Yest He violated policy by using a Taser when no threat existed Out of line He was absolutely out of line. Police officers are there to protect us, we shouldn't be trying to ilk protect ourselves from them. I Theresa Hutchinson, Orem Not the place F7 enforcement or anything else for that matter the place is before the judge; until then I suggest doing what the officer is telling you to do. Being bullheaded and argumentative kills more people each year in the United States than Tasers do worldwide. If you dont obey the law, or will not shut up and listen, you deserve to be tasered the law was right on this one. I Ardath Chipman, Springville f Another. Investigate training V; really believe that the POST academy should be investigated as part of the larger picture of excessive use their victims, instead rather proudly of force as demonstrated by the Orem displaying their superiority. I Charles Walton, lawn incident and now the Taser incident. Highland These officers, our assumed protectors, are getting this "immune Thanks to trooper attitude" from somewhere and I beCommon sense tells me if a law enlieve the authorities should determine forcement officer pointed a stun gun where it comes from. I am not trying to defend the guilt and told me to turn around, I would of the involved citizens, they all share think he was serious. Massey is not some responsibility in that regard, an innocent child and when he put the video on YouTube it was my turn to however, the police, in these instances, have seemingly egregiously be stunned. d Had that happened to me, I would and it is frightening to have been embarrassed and ashamed, contemplate that such "temperamennot broadcasting my bad attitude tal" attitudes could be unleashed on to the world. When his hand went myself or my family through some unfortunate, yet innocent miscommu-nicatio- a toward his pocket there was no way of knowing if he was reaching for Bottom line, our protectors appear something. I appreciate our law enforcement to be to use excessive and potentialhy dangerous force officers. Thanks, Trooper Gardner! In ways that are not necessary and Ann Nicholas, don't seem to have much concern for Orem I NOTfc Results ire unscientific md numbers may not tdd up to too percent due to rounding. Total votes: 223 STAFFDnly Hflratd Disappointing results A web site or newspaper is no place to argue the law, standing out on the highway is also not a place to argue the law. If anyone has problems with law Definitely the patrol officer acted properly. The abuse and lack of respect for the law is intolerable especially the mistreatment of patrol officers or any officer on duty that put their life on the line for its citizens. There are other ways to defend your self in court than being disrespectful to the very person that is there to save your life and the life of others. In Utah whether you are 70 or 7 years old, you disobey the law, prepare yourself to face the consequences. I Sandi Boley, Orem Lawful? Yes. Reasonable? No! I was disappointed by the results of the month probe of the UHFs taser incident. I have a hard time believing that anyone watching the video would conclude the officer used good judgment. I at least expected a reprimand. Many things disturbed me about the incident, least of which is tasering a and citizea I hope this officer is an exception to the rule. I'm guessing most UHP personnel are not as arrogant, jumpy, nervous, fearful, and excessive as Trooper Gardner portrayed. I Gary Leavitt, Orem over-reacte- d How to comment letters to dhlettersheraldextra.com Fax to 5 Mail to P.O. Box 717, Provo.UT 84603. I Letters must include the author's full name, address and daytime phone number. I We prefer shorter letters, 100 to 200 words. Letters may be edited for length. I Writers are encouraged to include their occupation and other personal informatioa I Because of the volume of letters, we cannot acknowledge 344-298- unpublished letters. I Letters become the property of the Daily Herald. |