Is Hugh Hewitt a Secularist?
A Response to Hewitt's Interview of Erick Erickson on Romney and Religion
By Hunter Baker Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My mother grew up in small-town Alabama. She was Catholic and went to a parochial school through the eighth grade. When she went to the local public high school she got a taste of anti-Catholic prejudice. People asked her questions like, "Is it true that when you get married, you have to sleep with a priest before you sleep with your husband?" It was a sometimes humiliating experience, but she lived through it and today, Catholic and Protestant relations in that same town are very comfortable. In fact, the pastor at a Southern Baptist church in the city gave a sermon praising John Paul II after his death. He went on to say that we should fervently hope the next Pope is a man like him because the Pope is the face of Christianity around the world. This rapprochement between Catholics and Evangelicals hasn't happened by avoiding questions or hiding behind identity politics. It has been earned through engagement.
So now, Hugh Hewitt writes a book about Mitt Romney as the first Mormon in the White House. I've already questioned whether the book is premature in the extreme. It's not as if there has been some amazing groundswell for the one term governor of Massachusetts who skipped out on the second term at least in part because everyone knows he would likely have lost. But the part that concerns us here is Hewitt's claim that by acting as if Romney's faith matters at all we somehow violate the spirit of Article VI's prohibition on religious tests for officeholding and that evangelical Christians in particular should hesitate to consider Romney's religion because they don't want to have their own political hopes stymied by others considering their faith.
I think Hewitt is fundamentally wrong. Let's tease this thing out a bit, shall we? (Click Read More below. You haven't seen this angle before!)
Article VI prohibits any religious test for officeholding in the federal government. So we will have no official requirement that only Episcopalians or whoever may serve in the federal government. Historically we know that set-up was basically about federalism (different states endorsing different denominations thus requiring federal stalemate), but let's forget that and deal with it as we see it today. No official test set in legislation, executive order, etc. Fine. But then there is the question of the individual's vote and you may exercise that however you wish. No Article VI interaction there.
Now, Hugh Hewitt wants to play the left-wing game and say that Article VI sets out an American value we should observe and that paying any attention to Romney's religion is a violation of that value.
I disliked that argument just as much the first time I read it in a little book titled The Godless Constitution by Isaac Kramnick and Laurence Moore. Kramnick and Moore were concerned that evangelicals and Catholics would refuse to consider a candidate who wasn't religious enough and would therefore, apply a sort of religious test against an atheist, for example, running for President.
Historically, there is plenty of precedent for considering a candidate's religion and it hasn't been such a terrible thing. Jefferson was nobody's idea of an orthodox Christian. He was the perfect picture of a deist, believing in morality and punishments and rewards in the afterlife, but not in the specific Christian revelation. New England Clergy who were members of the Federalist party raged against Jefferson's lack of correct faith. They preferred Adams, who was also not a picture perfect Christian in theology, but who was more favorable to religious establishments. Tellingly, Jefferson's supporters felt the need to deny the attacks on his Christianity.* Despite the religious controversy, Jefferson did defeat Adams and won the presidency. He required no rule against debating religious convictions of a candidate to do so.
John F. Kennedy was another example. In order to keep the Democratic party's southern support base intact, he had to deal with the issue of his Catholicism by taking it up directly with the people, as he did with Baptist ministers in Houston. Kennedy insisted he would be the president and not a proxy for Rome. Work it out for yourself whether that was correct theologically for a Roman Catholic, but Kennedy didn't hide behind some kind of insistence that his faith was off limits.
In interviewing Erick Erickson, Hugh Hewitt wanted to compare caring about Mitt Romney's religion to caring about someone's race. The entire line of argument is wrong-headed. The left has enchanted us into thinking about everything in terms of categories and how wrong it is to consider categories. On the face of it, Hewitt is right. Certainly, it would be illogical and malicious to refuse to consider voting for someone based on the surface reason of their race or religion. But there is a second layer to the inquiry. If a white candidate's beliefs about the world, about government, and about culture were significantly impacted by his race, then I think it's fair ground to know exactly how. If it leads him to believe in some kind of white superiority, then it's worth taking into account when voting. The same is obviously true of a disciple of Louis Farrakahn, in which case we are considering his race AND religion. I do not say such persons have no right to run for or hold office. I am saying WE have to right to ask such persons questions and to withhold our vote from such persons.
Would anyone willingly relinquish that right?
The point Erick made repeatedly in the interview that Hewitt treated as though it were no point at all is that there is very little public knowledge about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a Ph.D. candidate in religion and politics, I know a great deal about some of the ways Mormons have been terribly mistreated in American history, but I know very little about their actual theology. I'm an evangelical Christian with great sympathies toward the Catholic Church. My theology certainly affects my view of politics and I think I would be a cad to take the position that if I were running for office no one would have a right to ask me about it and wait to hear what I would say. I would assume that equal respect for a Mormon would be to assume that his religious beliefs are not purely private but actually have some impact on what he thinks, believes, and does.
To hold otherwise is to become a secularist who says that religion is only private and doesn't matter in the public square. I don't think Hugh Hewitt has come out in favor of secularism before, but maybe that's his new position. Religion is private and doesn't matter a whit to politics. Is that what you think, Mr. Hewitt?
No, Erick Erickson had the correct position. It's okay to be curious about the Mormon faith. It's okay for Mitt Romney to face questions about how his faith impacts the other areas of his life, including his political life. There's nothing unconstitutional or immoral about it. This is the process that will make the Church of Latter Day Saints a part of the fabric of American religious, political, and social life. Just being open to engagement is the key.
*The part about Jefferson's backers defending him from attacks on Christianity is telling because it denies the claim that the founding generation wasn't much concerned with the Chrsitian faith. Jefferson couldn't come straight out with it and hope to still be elected.
« Standby . . . — Comments (45) | The State Blog Project Grows — Comments (6) »
Is Hugh Hewitt a Secularist? 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Hugh opens his book berating any and all for daring to ask any questions about Mormons, Mitt's connection to the church, etc., and then spends several pages saying that returned Mormon missionaries and Mormon teenagers are going to be a huge asset for Mitt because of their training, background, etc.
If so, why can't people have questions about their training, background, etc.? Sure, some will be illegitimate. But some will be legit too.
a possible Mormon in the White House? Their theology might not be my cup of tea, but the LDS is at least a Christian based by-product (stated from lack of direct knowledge, not a slight). Not too much danger to Christians, from another Christian sect.
That said, Hunter aptly points out that, after the JFK/Catholic controversy, we should be beyond this particular bugaboo.
I think the point is that because people don't know as much about Mormonism, they are going to be naturally curious and susceptible to false or distorted information. While I don't support Romney for other reasons, I think he needs to be prepared to handle the extra scrutiny of his religion, as unfair as it may seem. I don't think the strategy of saying "it doesn't mattter" is a viable one. It's barely working in the Republican primary and will be much harder to sustain with independents and Democrats if he makes it to the general.
If he lets Mormonism be widely perceived as a cult, no one's going to care about his desire for religious tolerance. No one feels particularly tolerant to Scientology or the Moonies or other groups that are perceived as cults. So I think he faces a dual challenge of defining himself and framing his religion.
There is nothing lonelier than being a black Republican in Boston, Massachusetts
As a gay Republican in Cambridge, MA, I sympathize.
The reference to 'religious tests' is, fairly obviously, to placing legal bars to people taking office. With regard to elected office, you might think it redundant, since the Constitution itself sets out the qualifications for office, so I think we have to read it more widely.
Does it prevent a Democrat-controlled Senate from refusing to give consent to the appointment of Catholic judges? Probably. Does it prevent Senators asking judicial candidates their opinions on divisive questions "do you believe abortion is immoral?" for example? Probably not.
Does it prevent voters from considering a person's views? Er, no. How could such a provision possibly be enforced?
By the way, if I were an American voter, I would have no problem with Mitt Romney, or Martin A Knight.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Are you arguing that the 'no religious test' language in the Constitution would prevent the Senate from refusing to give consent to appointment of Catholic judges? I'm misreading you, right?
that "committed practicing Catholics" [my translation of his English "Catholic" into the somewhat rougher American] would be prone to be anti-abortion and would decide in that fashion in court. Hence, from a "pro-choice" perspective, a mingling of church and state.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
_Does it prevent a Democrat-controlled Senate from refusing to give consent to the appointment of Catholic judges? Probably._
Let me be clearer:
_Would it prevent a Democrat-controlled Senate from defining a policy which said *no* devout Catholic may be appointed as a judge? Probably._
It certainly does not mean that any individual Catholic must be automatically be approved.
What is the significance of this reading? Very little. The Senate is very unlikely to formally announce such a policy, and even if they refused every devout Catholic nominated, they would presumably cite different reasons in every case.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
but I think a post that specifically decries the lack of "public knowledge" about Romney's faith should at least get his faith's name right.
The official name of Romney's church is not the "Church of Latter Day Saints." It's technically not the "Mormon" church either. A style guide for how to properly describe the church can be found here:
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010Vgn...
Again, I know this isn't a big deal in the overall scheme of things, but I do think it's important to name names properly here as I think doing so could go a long way towards dispelling some of the most common myths about Romney's faith.
Has he answered the questions of if he was paid to write this and if so by whom?
I like Hugh a lot for a lot of reasons.
I am disappointed in him lately, however.
I doubt Hugh was paid. I think there was probably a reasonable expectation of massive pre-orders from groups favorable to a Romney candidacy.
Or more likely, Hugh Hewitt met Romney and was charmed by his charisma- and then decided to self-annoint himself as John the Baptist to prepare the way.
Whatever you say about him, Romney does have alot of charisma- and Hugh seems the sort to fall in love with a candidate and then go off on a crusade promoting that person.
Hugh Hewitt's opinions do not define Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is Mitt Romney.
I don't pay much attention to endorsments for any candidate, why should Hugh Hewitt's thoughts and opinions be so important in evaluating Mitt Romney as a candidate.
I think what Romney says is what is important.
I actually agree with you, but Romney has depended on Hugh Hewitt to run interference for him on the religion issue. It is patently obvious that Hewitt has informally been assigned the evangelical bloc in this campaign. The truth is, I think Romney would have been a lot better off without some ambassador aggressively trying to paint people with questions as religious bigots.
I may be naive to ask you this Hunter,
But with all do respect to a guy such as yourself, can you back up those claims with something other than Hewitt really likes Romney, or it's so obvious I am blind to miss it?
Why has Romney been going around meeting with all those evangelical leaders if Hugh is taking care of the issue for him?
Maybe this is just a case of bloggers over-rating their own importantance. I bet the vast majority of evangelicals have never heard of Hugh Hewitt, and if Romney is counting on Hewitt to "deliver" the evangelical vote then Romney is an idiot.
Romney is obviously not an idiot- ergo, Hewitt has not been assigned a key role in the Romney conspiracy to win the evangelical vote.
The most likely explaination is this:
Hewitt met Romney and was so impressed by him that Hewitt felt compelled to address the issue of Romney's religion- and being the self-important guy he is, decided he was obligated to write a book sharing his thoughts and opinions with all the rest of us.
What does this tell us about Romney? Not much.
Has Romney been counting on Hewitt to run interference for him? I see no evidence of this- except maybe in Hewitt's own mind.
Is Romney happy that Hewitt has volunteered to take this on? Obviously. As Romney himself said, he wants everybody's vote, why shouldn't he want everybody's endorsement? If Hewitt want to spend his time promoting his candidacy, well, great- but Romney has clearly not been depending on Hewitt in any meaningful way.
I think the book project speaks to the partnership between the two men. Romney could have done his campaign book with any of a number of people, but he extended his total cooperation to Hugh Hewitt. Do you really think you grant a half-journalist, half-activist that kind of access without planning on future cooperation? It looks very obvious to me.
But I certainly concede that beyond that I have no strong evidence of collaboration or that Hugh is some kind of official frontman to evangelicals.
All of this, of course, evades the point of the post, which is that Hewitt tries to privatize religion in exactly the way secularists do.
Who really cares what Hugh Hewitt is trying to do. This seems to me a simple case of bloggers getting self-important and thinking that somehow Hugh Hewitt is going to make the difference to the Romney campaign- guess what, he's not- So why are we spending so much time on him?
As to the point of co-operation- if I'm a candidate and some fellow, with reasonable conservative credentials approached me about his desire to write a positive book about the possiblity of my winning the Presidency- of course I'm going to give him access.
I think this may be both the strength and weakness of Romney's campiagn is that he doesn't have a strong machine. It's built more around his personality than say the Clinton campaign, or the Bush campaign for that matter. I see Romney engaging in a lot of ad hoc allainces. Now this has good points, and has bad points- but I'm getting off the subject.
As to what you feel is your main point- I suspect Hugh Hewitt would disagree. I take his point as being that we shouldn't allow theological disagreements about say... the nature of the Trinity, to determine the suitability of a Presidential candidate. However, theological disagreements over the morality of capital punishment would indeed be something legitimate to consider.
Of course, Hewitt's typical bombastic hyperbole tends to obsure this nuance. It's a case of sloppy language- and Hewitt deserves to be taken to task over it. I don't think that means we have to rake him over the coals. Nor should it attact the level of attention it has. I mean, there've been half a dozen diaries on the topic in just the past couple days! How can people care that much?
Plus, it's not even new- his book came out a long time ago- I remember seeing articles about his book back before the November elections- back when everyone was talking about George Allen. Why the sudden flurry of consternation?
I'm bewildered.
Cicero, I honestly don't know how much impact the blogs have on a candidacy today. I do know that campaigns are very keen to hire people who are connected to the blogworld and are very actively trying to disseminate information to them.
I think you see so much about Hewitt from me because I have read his weblog for years, put some stock in his opinion, and have been dismayed at the way he handled the Harriet Miers issue and now the Mitt Romney campaign. He promotes himself as a key representative of political bloggers and as a critic of the mainstream media. I'd like to see him live up to the responsibility of both of those mantles. He has been around "real" journalism a long time and is not an amateur like many of us. This semi-acknowledged boosterism isn't working.
With no support.
How is it patently obvious that Hewitt has been informally assigned the evangelical bloc.
Hewitt independently approached Romney with the book idea, not the other way around. He told Romney the book was going to be written with or without his cooperation and Romney agreed to open up.
I believe Hewitt saw an opportunity to cash in on the topic and knew that much of the initial book sales would come from those predisposed to support Romney. It is entirely logical to surmise that a fair piece would sell better than a hit job.
Well writ, Mr. Baker. Religionists can't have it both ways---either the public square is naked (of God, religion, revelation) or it's not.
If an Enlightened person decides that believing a man walked on water, rose from the dead and himself was God makes a candidate an unreasonable person and unfit for office, so be it.
So too, if orthodox Christians find that believing God lives on Planet Kolob (or nearby) is a little too wiggy, so be it.
I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Hugh's main contention with Erik's post (and my contention as well) was the implication that the fervent work of Mormons in an election demands a closer inspection of their theology and then subsequently projecting these results on Romney.
My question to Erik is why? What is it you are looking for? Is there something in their religion that would disqualify Romney in your mind?
Good post though... You might find this topic interesting here.