Mitt Romney Supports Religious Discrimination in Government?

As a member of a religious minority whose religion might be an obstacle to being elected to national office, one might imagine that Mitt Romney would be sensitive about the idea of discriminating against people because of religion. That would apparently be a mistake, however, because Mitt Romney doesn't seem to have any problem with discriminating on the basis of religion — at least when it's not his own religion at issue.

We shouldn't be surprised if religious bigotry isn't all that unusual among Christians. We must remember that Christianity teaches that it's the only legitimate and valid religion. Since every other religion is illegitimate, it's difficult to simultaneously argue that adherents of those religions should be treated just as well as Christians. Through most of Christian history, non-Christians have had fewer rights and a lower status in society; it's only very recently that this has changed and the changes probably are as deep as people would like.

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead. Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they're too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking. More ironic, that Islamic heritage is what qualifies them to best engage America's Arab and Muslim communities and to help deter Islamist threats.

Source: Christian Science Monitor (via: Carpetbagger)

Jews and Mormons also exist in relatively low numbers in the population, so does this mean that Mitt Romney would refuse to put any of them in his cabinet? I think it goes without saying that explicit refusal to include Jews would be treated by many as blatant anti-Semitism, but how many of the same will view the same treatment of Muslims as legitimate? If Romney were serious in his quota attitude, he'd drop out of the presidential race as ineligible for higher office, but somehow I don't see him apply the same standards to himself and other Mormons that he wants to apply to Muslims. That's a strong hallmark of bigotry.

Secularists and atheists exist is relatively large numbers when compared to many religious minorities, so does this mean that Romney would be sure to put an atheist or humanist on his cabinet? Almost certainly not — either because he doesn't seriously believe that population numbers are relevant or because he doesn't want to have a nonbeliever put in such a position of power and authority. Either way, we're looking once again at a clear sign of bigotry.

Apparently recognizing that it might prove problematic for voters to hear about his anti-Muslim bigotry, Romney's campaign released a statement claiming that the question was whether he thought he needed a Muslim in his cabinet, not whether he would consider having a Muslim in his cabinet. Mansoor Ijaz, the man who wrote the original column, insists that Romney and his campaign are lying:

"This guy is lying now to the American people," said Ijaz. "He probably never imagined someone would come out and write a piece the way I did. And I think he made a serious mistake in judgment in trying to disown what he said." ... "I can tell you," he said, "that Romney's push back, meaning his statement about the Japanese is all bullshit. He never talked about the Japanese at that point. Everything he said today is simply trying to reconfigure this item, which is he doesn't feel there is a need to put people of Islamic faith into his cabinet."

Source: Huffington Post (via: Carpetbagger)

Evidently, the interview with Ijaz isn't the first time Romney has expressed anti-Muslim bigotry:

Irma Aguirre, the former finance director for the Nevada Republican Party, told the Huffington Post about her experience at a Romney fundraiser roughly two months ago: "I was curious to listen to Romney, I was very impressed by him and I'm kind of undecided about whom to support. Well, at one point, they opened questions to the audience and a gentleman who was with me... raised his hand and posed a question. 'Being that Muslims do not really trust America's leaders, do you think it would be prudent, or would you consider having a Muslim in your cabinet as an adviser to lend credibility to the administration? His response was 'probably not' or 'most likely not.'"

According to Aguirre, Romney pivoted from the question into a discussion on the dangers jihadism posed to America. "I was shocked and disgusted," she recounted. I felt like "he was assuming that all Muslims were jihadists. And later, I just kind of looked at a friend of mine who is a huge Mitt Romney supporter, she asked me, 'Isn't he great?' and I said, 'absolutely not.'"

If someone were serious about addressing the problem of Islamic extremism, wouldn't it make sense to put a Muslim face on a powerful government agency that's dealing with that problem? To cite a simple analogy, a president seeking to address problems in America's black communities would probably try to find a black person to lead the effort, not a white or Hispanic person. If they did try to use a white person, they'd be criticized for it. Romney, though, will presumably find a Christian to try to talk to Muslims and address Muslims' problems with extremism in their religion. Is that really the most intelligent decision?

All that aside, though, we are still faced with the fact that automatically excluding a group from a job — regardless of qualifications, experience, politics, etc. — is an easy and basic example of bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination. It doesn't matter whether the group in question is Muslims, Jews, atheists, gays, Catholics, blacks, Latinos, women, blondes, etc. At the very least, Romney should have answered that he would choose cabinet positions based on skills, qualifications, and experiences rather than focus on matters like their personal religious beliefs. He didn't, though, and it appears that it's because this wouldn't be his policy.