Romney, Religion, and the Moral Lessons of Superbad
Jeff Alworth
On this day when Mitt Romney gave a speech about Mormonism and the country pauses collectively to consider the larger question of the role of religion in politics, my mind turns to lessons I learned this weekend watching Superbad. For those of you who missed this important artistic treatise, a thumbnail recap: two teenage boys about to graduate from high school try to use the sentimentality provoked during the waning days of senior year as a platform from which to score chicks. 
It is among the most profane films ever made (I'm waiting for a masters thesis on how it outscores Pulp Fiction in profanities-per-minute), jejune, and cringe-producingly honest. It is also beautifully humane, and yet another retort from Judd Apatow to the Jerry Falwell moralism that has dominated the US for 20 years.
The most potent example of the Apatow oeuvre comes from an outtake that didn't make it into The 40 Year Old Virgin. In a cameo, Apatow himself plays a father who comes to shop at a big-box electronics store for his two-year-old daughter, whom he holds in his arms (played by his real-life daughter). The store is the setting for the movie, and one of the main characters haplessly tries to sell him a high-tech robot even as Apatow protests that robots scare his daughter. Predictably, she begins to cry--causing her father to (unpredictably) roar back a sting of profanity so blue it would embarrass a Marine. He clutches her tenderly all the while. Given the cultural mores of our time, this comes off as shockingly transgressive (no wonder it got cut). What offends is not the behavior--a non-English speaker watching would remain nonplussed--but the profanity. In front of a two-year-old--for shame! Hold that thought.
The Republican Party has become the party of a certain God--the two so fused that it becomes a crisis when a Mormon runs (wrong God) while wholly unremarkable that a front-runner is a parson. Romney's candidacy is viable, perversely, because our current cultural and religious context favors deeply conservative expressions of faith and family. Romney runs as an overtly religious candidacy ("it is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions")--promising to solidify not only the values, but even the status of the dominant faith, to which he does not subscribe. This is bizarre, but also a metaphor for the type of socio-religious expectations the country now holds.
Religions--and consequently cultures--oscillate between periods of fundamentalism and universalism. During the universalist moments, religions mine the mystical, look outward, focus on acceptance, and become skeptical of authority and tradition. In the fundamentalist moments, they rely on the literal, look inward to the tribe of believers, focus on judgment, and aver to authority and tradition. (There are pros and cons to both positions, but this isn't a post about theological liberali sm.) Cultures follow the religious trends (or do they lead?--was Vatican II a symptom or a cause?), and so as a reflection, times of fundamentalism look tribal, judgmental, literal, and authoritarian.
Form is big during fundamentalist times. Since we're constantly on
the lookout for the heretics, form is the signifier of orthodoxy.
Women cover up, public religiosity increases, suspicion
of foreigners grows. You ultimately come to the place where the form
supplants the thing it is supposed to express--Tom DeLay, run from
office for gross corruption, continuing to castigate the "Democrat
Party" with pious, God-flaunting speeches to adoring, religious audiences.
Enter Apatow, the cultural revolutionary. In his work going back to Freaks and Geeks (one of the best television series ever, especially if you were in school in the 80s), and more recently with 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, he constantly offers an inverted vision. In it, his characters flout the form of piousness (he exalts profane, promiscuous, drunken, and bawdy people), but ultimately, express its actual sacred nature. Knocked Up starts out with a boozy night of sex and ends up sweetly, with an intact family sharing unconditional love. In Superbad, the lesson (spoiler alert here) is similar. The fat kid tries to liquor up the hot chick so he can score, but it turns out she actually likes him for who he is, doesn't drink, and their relationship can't begin until he sobers up and they can connect directly as humans, eschewing convention and psychotropics.
I suspect this election represents a turning point for the culture--if the religious trends we see are any indication. The Republican Party's identification with religious orthodoxy is beginning to border on parody--Mitt Romney's candidacy is viable because he's the embodiment of religious form even though he practices a faith most of the fundamentalists to whom he most appeals consider heretical. If the religion is large enough to allow political participation by outsiders who are most likely to protect its status, what does that say about moral relativism? The GOP, who has prided itself on unyielding religious literalism, must now decide whether a Mormon's good enough. If he is, how does that square with the literalist word?
For the rest of us, though, the choices are more bountiful. We can let our minds open up a little and see what it feels like to be less tribal. Apatow offers a vision where flawed people muddle through difficult lives without any clear compass to guide them. But in the end, they realize that when they open up, they can make actual human connections. He doesn't preach salvation, but maybe his way offers it. Given the choices, I'll take his version over Mitt's.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:11 p.m.
Dec 6, '07
A fine, fine, fine piece Jeff. Your words need to go to a broader audience.
Dec 6, '07
In his over-hyped address today on "Faith in America," Romney sought to disarm evangelicals' fears about the role of his Mormon faith, fears that threaten his campaign's prospects in the lynchpin state of Iowa. But while he likely failed in that task, Romney assuredly succeeded in redefining the U.S. Constitution's ban on religious tests for political office. According to Romney's notion of public service, Muslims and atheists need not apply.
for the details, see: "Mitt Romney Creates His Own Religious Test."
1:12 p.m.
Dec 6, '07
I also watched Superbad this week (for the second or third time, admittedly)....insightful analysis. Apatow is the man.
1:20 p.m.
Dec 6, '07
Wow. This is really good. Thank you, Jeff.
2:06 p.m.
Dec 6, '07
Definitely. What Paulie and Kari said.
Kinda sad that the choices boil down to irrational belief systems espoused by millions swing toward kindness and empathy or toward fear and exclusiveness, but I can't fault your reasoning.
Haven't seen Superbad, thinking it to be some sort of John Hughes with humor kind of thing.
It's on my list now.
Dec 6, '07
Religion (belief in unfounded, supernatural agency) isn't part of everyone's culture.
I could not care less if the Holy Spirit or Sauron or the Angel Moroni floats your boat. I want to hear some effective, thoroughly researched, well-argued proposals on education, health care, energy, foreign policy, etc...
Gail Collins put it well in today's NY Times: "The presidential campaign is sure getting hot. Mike Huckabee is inching ahead of Mitt Romney in Iowa, precipitating a fascinating national debate about whether Mormons or Baptists love Jesus more."
Gee, I hope Darth Vader, or Jebus, won't determine U.S. foreign policy! (any more!)
Of course, it's hard to top George Carlin on this subject in this classic youtube clip... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Enjoy!
P.S. What is a "universalist" religious position? I'll pick and choose which literary passages from the Bible, Koran, Talmud, Edith Hamilton's "Mythology," Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings," George Lucas' "Star Wars," etc. to swallow whole without a shred of evidence - hook, line and sinker? Let's get past this crap - enjoy the poetry but please drop the faith...
4:55 p.m.
Dec 6, '07
Paulie, Kari, Pat--thanks!
Oregon Bill,
I used the word "universalist" because it knitted together the themes that contrast fundamentalism--it's not a word used in theology. Theologically, fundamentalism relies on literal interpretations of the Bible, and conservative interpretations of ritual and tradition. To use a Catholic example, keeping Latin mass is conservative, translating to English liberal. Within Biblical studies, there is a debate about interpretation of the text--whether the meaning is fixed or exists in a context of writer and reader, where the meaning would have been different to audiences 2,000 years ago than it is now. Guess which is the liberal and conservative position?
(FWIW, I'm a Buddhist.)
Dec 6, '07
"P.S. What is a "universalist" religious position?"
Depends on whether you capitalize universalist or not. There are many Unitarian Universalist congregations which are a merger of 2 different denominations which joined (just like UCC is Congregational and a bunch of others).
If I remember correctly, both Barak Obama and Howard Dean have connections to UCC churches in their home towns.
Dec 7, '07
Thanks for the clarification. But these "themes that contrast fundamentalism" are still religious. What about the growing number of Americans (apparently a majority of Germans, Brits and other Europeans) who aren't religious at all?
You're certainly right about the GOP - its "identification with religious orthodoxy is beginning to border on parody."
And this is likely driving religious "universalists" to publicly reject the association between religion/faith and its clear and ugly consequences, like terrorism, misogyny, gay bashing, scientific illiteracy and violent Middle East crusades...
But we need effective, evidence-based policy approaches, not ignorant appeals to Jesus, Emperor Klaktu, or those rich, demented white prophets in Salt Lake City. No matter how touchy feely, inclusive or sincere, it's still fiction - which is great, often a good read, lots of passionate war stories, plenty of sex, torture, persecution, etc. But it's obviously a lousy basis for government policy.
Our American bible is the US Constitution (real people wrote it, and ratified it), and Article VI prohibits any "religious test" for public office...
But thanks for the post - I'll definitely check out Superbad!
10:41 a.m.
Dec 7, '07
Cultural influence is obviously greater in countries where religion is a bigger deal (more in Iran than France). But America is one of the most religious western countries, and whether the citizens are religious themselves, the cultural effect is substantial. I certainly feel it, anyway.
By the way, Superbad may be an acquired taste. Knocked Up may be a better place to start with Apatow--unless you've seen some of his work.
Dec 7, '07
Thanks Jeff -
I feel it, too - and it feels lousy!
But that's even more reason to note, regularly, the total lack of evidence for any "faith-based" beliefs and the damage they do. And to note that not every American buys their crap... To many these days, Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Arguing over who has the bigger Jesus? Mormonism was started by a complete fraud (check out Jon Krakauer for some appalling details...) - so let's make that clear.
Americans don't often hear honest assessments of faith - instead it's accorded "respect," and pandering, from Republicans and Democrats, which it utterly fails to deserve. When Americans hear criticism, more and more people nod their heads in agreement. That's a positive development, given that evidence-free faith provokes, (once again) terrorism, misogyny, homophobia, scientific illiteracy, and war...
Would Carlin like Superbad? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
11:23 a.m.
Dec 7, '07
Comedy's generational, but yeah, I bet he would.
Dec 7, '07
"Romney runs as an overtly religious candidacy "
Puh-leeze, Hilary/Bill mage a regualar show of popping out of a Methodist church.
Barack Obama is a baptized member of the United CHurch of Christ. His quote - "It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized."
I have no idea why you think a preson's religon is more important than his actions. I really don't think Romney is pushing Mormonism, but I do not think he is ashamed of it either - as it should be.
So explain the point you are trying to make besides you got more out of a movie about horny teenagers than you did a man's personal statement of faith (judging by column inches.)
Dec 8, '07
Excellent and insightful post.
Romney says he believes Jesus is divine and is the savior. That makes him a Christian in my book. But the hard-core evangelicals have a problem because he's not their kind of Christian.
This gives you an idea of what the evangelicals would do if they ever realize their dream of making America a "Christian nation." You not only would have to be a Christian, but you would have to be the right kind of Christian -- i.e., their kind.
These people are truly dangerous.
12:00 p.m.
Dec 8, '07
I really don't think Romney is pushing Mormonism, but I do not think he is ashamed of it either - as it should be.
Steve, you're onto something there.
when Kennedy gave his speech it was basically:
yeah I'm a Catholic, but I'll be an American president and I would never allow my faith to override my committment to governing under the US Constitution.
Romney's speech was more like:
yeah I'm a Mormon, but I'll be a Religious Right candidate just like that Baptist guy and we agree that those athiests and their secular thinking are Bad, Bad, Bad.
Two very different messages.
Dec 8, '07
An unfortunate aspect of American education is that students learn very little of European history and the horrific wars and barbarity that were the consequences of different interpretations of the Christian faith and conflicts with other faiths of which the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, and the Inquisition were three of many examples.
How many "Christians" have been advocating waging wars (more Crusades and inevitable slaughter) against Iraq and Iran? Recently, when children's health programs were being discussed, how many "Christians" squawked about children of illegal immigrants getting treatment through these programs, and how many "Christians" said they would write the programs to deny these children treatment? Apparent answer: All those who forgot or didn't get the message from the parable about the Good Samaritan.
Come to think of it, an unfortunate aspect of American education is that students learn very little of any history, including their own. Perhaps worse is that much of the history students learn is myth and sugar-coated versions of events.
Dec 8, '07
"the hard-core evangelicals have a problem because he's not their kind of Christian."
"I'll be a Religious Right candidate just like that Baptist guy"
OK, reconcile the above statements then. I am saying, I wouldn't vote against Romeny because he is a Mormon, just like I wouldnt vote against Candidate X because he is a professed athiest. You're confusing morals with politics.
9:42 p.m.
Dec 8, '07
Puh-leeze, Hilary/Bill mage a regualar show of popping out of a Methodist church.
Yes, they were overt about their beliefs. So what? No one felt this meant he would try to outlaw abortion and put far-right judges on the court. But that's exactly what Romney's trying to say--despite his history in Massachusetts. I don't know how the post could be clearer than it already is.
OK, reconcile the above statements then. I am saying, I wouldn't vote against Romeny because he is a Mormon, just like I wouldnt vote against Candidate X because he is a professed athiest. You're confusing morals with politics.
<h2>The issue for me, Steve, is which text the politician will follow. For Christian conservatives, the Bible is paramount. What Romney's arguing is that, never mind his religion, it will remain paramount if he's elected. Some of us would actually like the Constitution to guide the President.</h2>