On
Romney, Mormonism And Islam
By
Ramzy Baroud
16 December,
2007
Countercurrents.org
Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s speech on December 6th -
in which he tried to ‘explain’ his Mormon faith - was met
with a mostly sympathetic reception at George Bush Library in Texas.
The speech
has been long anticipated, not so much for its relevance to the pressing
debate on the defining role of religion in American politics, and how
this undermines the very meaning of secular democracy. It was awaited
simply because Romney belongs to the wrong faith. Recent polls indicate
that one out of every three Republicans will not vote for Romney because
he is a Mormon.
The whole
affair has done much to reveal the hypocrisy of institutional democracy
in the United States. While every presidential candidate, Republican
or Democrat, has unreservedly uttered lip service to democratic ideals,
very few have dared push the boundaries by actually explaining their
personal views on what separation of church and state means.
Given the
Republicans’ reservations on Romney and the fact that the religious
vote has long been shown to be a formidable factor in determining who
claims the throne of the Oval Office, one can easily deduce that religion
is hardly a personal matter in the American political milieu. Imagine,
for instance, the sort of chances a presidential candidate would have
as a dedicated atheist, or worse, as a devout Muslim.
It might
be a long time - if ever - before the possibility of a Muslim candidate
representing a major party is put to the test. But one need not wait
that long to appreciate the narrow-mindedness of the media and politicians,
and how this influences public opinion.
While the
urgency of ‘responding’ to Islamic fundamentalism has been
consistently highlighted in the ongoing presidential campaign, very
little has been said about Christian, Jewish or other religious fundamentalisms.
Rarely has a candidate – with the exception of Democrat Dennis
Kucinich – dared to examine the relationship between Christian
fundamentalism and the Iraq war, or Jewish fundamentalism and the Israeli
occupation of Palestine. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism are
rarely discussed as perilous phenomena in their own right; if it’s
not ‘Islamic’ it simply doesn’t count.
Such short-sightedness
has wide-ranging and deeply harmful implications. All that a volunteer
for Senator Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign needed to do
to temporarily disrupt the recent gains of Barack Obama’s campaign
was to distribute an email suggesting that Obama was a Muslim intent
on ‘destroying’ the United Sates. As laughable as this may
sound, one cannot underestimate the impact that such rumours have on
voters filled with fear and disdain for everything Muslim. Of course,
Christian fundamentalist President George W. Bush’s wholesale
destruction of a Muslim country, Iraq, is not a mere rumour. That this
is not considered noteworthy is most telling. Chances are Obama will
do his utmost to distance himself from the rumour – as he has
done in the past - which could reinvigorate the old accusation that
he spent time studying at a Muslim school. Obama previously responded
by vowing to respond severely to Muslim terrorism, going so far as to
say he would bomb Pakistan if necessary. Whether he will upgrade further
his hostile language to show his worthiness to lead America is yet to
be seen.
Although
Islam and Muslims were hardly relevant to Romney’s speech, Naomi
Schaefer Riley of the conservative Wall Street Journal couldn’t
prevent herself from shoving Islam into the picture, predictably in
an unfavorable light. In her article, ‘What Iowans Should Know
About Mormons’ (December 7), Riley cites a recent Pew poll which
shows that “only 53% of Americans have a favourable opinion of
Mormons.” She then observes: “That's roughly the same percentage
who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters
of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics.”
Riley then
gets to her main and vindictive point: “Whatever the validity
of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by
the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly
educated religious group founded within our own borders?”
Not only
did Riley isolate 9/11 from the pre and post 9/11 contexts (again conveniently
neglecting the fact that nearly a million Iraqis were killed by those
who mostly profess the Christian faith), she also implicitly indicated
that Mormonism is everything that Islam is not. The latter religion
is thus hostile, unproductive, backward and alien.
Riley was
hardly satisfied with selectively linking a religion professed by over
a billion people of all colors and ethnicities worldwide - including
millions of Americans - to a few hijackers. She used the rest of her
inadequate ‘analysis’ to inappropriately bring Islam to
a discussion from which it should have been entirely spared.
One can understand
the urge of the faithful of any religion to make preferences for presidential
candidates on the basis of their faith. One can thus also understand
why politicians cater to the religious sensibilities of their constituents,
even if this means resorting to untruths. But one cannot in any way
sympathize with the mainstream media – perceived largely as ‘liberal’
– for failing to realign the debate by bringing it back to its
proper boundaries: that of equitable democracy vs religious prejudices,
looking at Romney as a man who can do good, or bad for America rather
than a man who professes a ‘wacky’ or ‘cult-like’
faith.
It’s
odd that in the first decade of the 21st century, the media still validates
the same religious thoughtlessness that had prevailed in America when
Catholic John F. Kennedy made his famous statement in 1960 asserting
that the Pope would not sway his presidency. Indeed, the media should
have chastised the entire debate which ranks potential presidents based
on whose God is best, or whether comparative religion should be discussed
at all. Needless to say mediocre journalism like that of Riley should
have never made it to print in the first place.
Ramzy
Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide.
His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a
People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.