Romney on Religion
PoliGazette’s Marc Moore witnessed Mitt Romney deliver his religion speech in person. Read his entire post.
Relaxed, confident, gracious, Mitt Romney cuts an impressive figure, both on stage and working the crowd. He is everything a political candidate should be and, some would say, one thing more.
I was witness to Mitt Romney addressing the big issue in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination – his belief in the Mormon religion. Romney’s fifteen minute speech, presently available for viewing on his campaign’s home page, covered significant ground in regard to Romney’s beliefs, their influence on his leadership, and as well as touching on religion in public life and government in this country and is well worth watching despite the poor audio quality.
Mr. Romney, who traveled with his wife and four of his sons to the event, said:
There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam’s words: “We have no government armed with a power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality…Our constitution was made for a moral and righteous people”.
Indeed, a sizable minority of Americans would disagree with the notion that religion is related in any way to freedom. I’m not entirely certain I would go that far myself. But there is an undeniable connection between the moral behavior of a people and the stability and freedom of their society, whether than morality is derived from a religious or other code of conduct.
Romney made the obligatory connection between himself and John Kennedy, the first Catholic President of the United States.
Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define by candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
There are differences that distort the analogy, of course. The Mormon religion is both further from traditional Christian values than Catholicism is and represented by by significantly fewer adherents in the U.S., making Romney more of a fringe candidate, religiously speaking. Romney knows this, of course, and after promising his religion would not interfere with his executing the responsibilities of the office to which he aspires, answered the question of whether he would step back from his beliefs thusly:
There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more of a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do.
…
Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
Romney went on to say that no president or candidate should assume the mantle of speaker for his religion. This, he said, would constitute a breach of the Establishment Clause.
While that is an important statement and one that Mike Huckabee may be repeating soon, its practical effects are negligible. This action would not and should not be condoned by religious leaders. In this country, at this time, at least, political leaders are more often simple congregation members that sanctioned religious leaders and their basis for speaking on behalf of a church is, perhaps excepting Mr. Huckabee, rather minute.
Romney then proceeded to take on a much larger, more important one, namely the courts’ (d)evolving interpretation of said Clause itself:
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God. Religion is seen merely as a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation “Under God” and in God we do indeed trust.
Turning to the international scene, Romney touched on the empty secularism of Europe, the beautiful, empty churches and the dying vine of religion there. I’ve been in a few of these awesome cathedrals myself and the scale and grandeur of the architecture is astounding. But they always left me feeling cold. Perhaps this was caused by the fact that most of the people inside were simply wandering about snapping photographs for their scrapbooks. That, it seems, is the vision of American secularists as well, what with their complaints about the 10 Commandments and bibles being on display in public buildings. Rather childish of them, but such is the type. Romney dismissed them with a casual turn of phrase and received the applause he deserved for doing so.
He also dismissed the values of the west’s radical Muslim enemies with equal directness, saying:
Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom…killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
I agree with this sentiment, as I’ve written many times, and it’s good to see that Romney, as moral a politician as has existed in some time, recognizes the danger that Islam, unchecked by legality or ethics, poses to the world and to the west in particular.
On another note, the obligation of Americans to serve each other was mentioned several times during the speech, starting with the introduction given by former President George H. W. Bush. To me this was the one misstep that Romney made though I doubt that many people will find it significant among the other issues of the day. Service and charity are not required of citizens, nor should they be. Romney’s religion, like Christianity, does require it, however, and his emphasis on volunteerism and our responsibility to others speaks strongly to his adherence to the beliefs of Mormonism.
Not that is wrong – the Mormons I know have all been truly caring people who exemplify more of Christ’s character than those of any other religion I know, including my own. It’s only in the narrow confines of a speech about the separation of religion and governance that the obligatory nature of service as it exists in Romney’s mind becomes a distraction.
It should be clear by now Mitt Romney will not deny his belief in and worship of God. Whatever other questions may exist about the man, his record, and his values, this much is certain. Whether his confidence in the American people’s ability to look past his religious beliefs and see the character of the man that would govern them will be justified is an open question. I believe they could, given a stark contrast with an opposing candidate like Hillary Clinton, for example. I do not think that he will suffer in comparison to other Republicans in the primaries because of his convictions, with one exception – Mike Huckabee.
Although I’ve already come out for Huckabee in this race I have to admit that I was impressed by Romney. Should he pull what I consider to be a significant upset and win the nomination he will certainly get my vote in the general election over the Democratic candidate.
hmmm, I was under the impression that if you were displaying the American flag you display only one. And that is to the right of the speaker.
“Romney touched on the empty secularism of Europe”
Secularism isn’t empty – it’s a must and there doesn’t have to be anything there. What the heck is this?
“That, it seems, is the vision of American secularists as well, what with their complaints about the 10 Commandments and bibles being on display in public buildings. Rather childish of them, but such is the type. Romney dismissed them with a casual turn of phrase and received the applause he deserved for doing so.”
Now that is just pathetically lazy of Romney and his applauders. No ten commandments in public buildings, no unnecessary affirmation of a christian god. To say it is childish to not want a bunch of christian propaganda paid for with your money is not “childish” – that’s defending yourself. I’m gonna need a bath.
Than take a bath. While I place little value in a candidates religious preferences, I also recognize that there is nothing on separation of church and State anywhere in the Constitution and I see it as redundantly stupid to ignore what our Country was founded on. Forcing removal of religion from people’s lives was also not anywhere in the Constitution nor is it anywhere in the Framers writings.
“Forcing removal of religion from people’s lives was also not anywhere in the Constitution nor is it anywhere in the Framers writings.”
No tax money for religious propaganda. Not one cent. Also, no damn oaths taken on the bible with the whole “so help me god” BS either. It is anti-secular – begone with it.
Sullivan’s post on the speech blows this out of the water.
Find it in the Constitution – anywhere.
:: crickets chirping ::
Thought so
“Find it in the Constitution – anywhere.
:: crickets chirping ::
Thought so”
The constitution is flawed if it doesn’t prevent the government from putting an exclusively christian tablet of rules on top of a building using people’s money. That prevention isn’t forcing religion from anyone.
Lets fix that to say
What the Constitution does not prevent is the display of any Religion in public places. The Constitution specifically, completely, fully allows me the Right to worship pink Butterflies as my Religious Item if I so choose.
Name one Federal Law or State Law that Mandates people go to a specific Church.
Just one – there is oh a couple hundred Centuries plus to choose from. If you find none – than the Constitution has done it’s job. That sometimes (when politically convenient) pesky little document that was drafted, reviewed thousands of times and ratified by the States with a complete solid majority of the people.
This sentiment is incompatible with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. If those involved in public affairs were to be ordered to suppress all expression of their faith as the price of their participation in public affairs, then religious liberty would be meaningless.
And it is incoherent to suggest that public expression of religious belief is intrisically “anti-secular” as expression of one’s own beliefs does NOT imply disrespect for another person’s differing beliefs. Xel’s standard, if applied, would result in a state-mandated atheism under the banner of “secularism” which is incompatible with religious liberty and results in state policies indistinguishable from those of the anti-religious suppression of the former Soviet Union.
I also find Xel’s frequently-expressed hatred and contempt towards religion and religious people to be hostile to the ideals of liberal democracy. Xel seems to believe that everyone has a right to believe and express belief in whatever they want, as long as it agrees with him/her or, at least, remains outside of his/her sensory range. In short, Xel asserts the right to set the limits of public expression at what he/she agrees with. That is indistinguishable from those who would ban all public dissent from any other form of state-mandated orthodoxy. Arguing that all expression of religious belief is “anti-secular” and therefore legitimate for suppression is no different than the Soviet Union’s contention that all expression of religion ws “anti-revolutionary” and therefore legitimate for suppression.
The fact that Xel on another thread called Romney’s expression of a personal belief in a link between religion and freedom (individual freedom does, in fact, lie at the heart of Mormon religious doctrine) “sickening” seems to me an indication that Xel’s objections to religion rise to the level of outright hostility and are not merely fears about religious coercion. Sorry, Xel, but bigotry is bigotry even when it comes in the false clothing of “secularism”. And the fact that anti-religious bigotry remains not only tolerable in some segments of the left but even a badge of honor doesn’t change its underlying nastiness and INtolerance towards others. Calling “black” to be “white” doesn’t make it so, and neither does calling anti-religious bigotry “secularism”. You’ve called religious believers stupid and other names so many times I’ve lost count and YOU NEED TO STOP if you want to claim to be tolerant and true to liberal principles of individual freedom of conscience. That freedom, if it is to be real, must BY DEFINITION include the right of PUBLIC expression of views that you find not only wrong but ludicrous.
The Constitution guarantees free exercise of religion and that guarantee is NO WHERE conditioned on the requirement that it be kept private or out of sight of others. Religion cannot be made mandatory by the state (and, in fact, it is not, no matter how hard anti-religion activists try to exaggerate and distort the truth), but neither can it be censored from the public sphere using the power of the state. The individual right of free expression and free exercise does not cease to exist just because other people happen to be around, Xel.
Xel, I think you should step back and apply the principles of tolerance that you claim to value to other religious views just as much as you would demand others apply those principles of tolerance to race or gender or sexual orientation. Until and unless you do, your comments will continue to be exercises in gross hypocrisy and you will continue to be called out on it.
The framers of the Constitution knew exactly that the pursuit of religion is entirely personal and not the least public. They could easily have proscribed an official religion and refused to do so, thus acknowledging that belief was wholly private. Furthermore, by arguing against religious symbols paid for and exhibited by public funds and/OR on public lands that raise the importance of one religion over another, one does not suppress the rights of free exercise of religion from “peoples’ lives” as is suggested above. It merely removes it from federal advocacy. While the Constitution says nothing about this specifically, the Bible has definite statements arguing against worship that is too public.
I would life to know how Mr. Moore determines childish nature. Is it, for instance, childish to say that I do not in any way find the ten commandments indicative of my moral values, nor, for the most part those of my country? Or is it more childish to say that the belief of some be sanctioned as the belief of all in a country that establishes free expression, and to pay official homage to that belief through mere symbols? While he congratulates Mr. Romney for his “turn of phrase”, Mr. Moore’s own turn of phrase, “somewhat childish” in dismissing those he disagrees with strikes me as somewhat inane.
That premise flies in the face of the entire Colonist experiences in England and in the cases of many – for fleeing it.
The United States of America recognizes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land.
“That premise flies in the face of the entire Colonist experiences in England and in the cases of many – for fleeing it.”
Uh, which colonists in England? The celts? The romans? If you mean the colonist in America, you are missing the point that they fled England because of an imposition of an official religion, exactly as I posit. They wanted religious freedom as a PERSONAL experience not a governmental imposition. Furthermore, their experience is hardly reflected either by the Constitution itself or the framers thereof. Few if any of the framers were related to original puritans and none of them held the puritan faith. It should also be noted that Franklin, Jefferson, and probably Washington were deists, that is, believed in god by not neccessarily the popular religions of their day.
I’m not sure I understand your comment about the Constitution. It quite adamantly proposes that the federal government shall not establish an official religion. This says nothing about specific, so-called secularist objections to public displays, but the Supreme Court has determined that such displays do indeed show establishment. Thus, I can say the Constitution doesn’t address this issue in and of itself. My reference to the Bible is to show the hypocrisy of the debate: “The Constitution says nothing about the public displays of my faith. But my faith says I shouldn’t be impressed by public displays of my faith.” There’s a dichotomy there, and the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you about the Constitution, or at least the inference of non-establishment. Either way you don’t have much of an argument.
True and false. Yes, they could’ve attempted to proscribe it but they thought it was something every person should be able to do at will. This means, among other things, that they can worship as they please at home, but also – and it has always meant that – that they can express their faith in the public square. Non-religious Americans may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that America has a separation of Church and State, but not of Religion and State. Or, better perhaps, you’ve got separation of Church and State but not laicism.
That may offend some people but so be it. That’s part of living in a free country: you’ll be offended every now and then.
Anyway, as an American Studies student I can say that those who argue the opposite – Xel et al. – display a serious lack of knowledge about American history and culture.
Mr. Steck, are you implying that you find nothing wrong with Romney saying that freedom does not exist without religion? I find the sentiment frightening and abhorrent. By saying this he states clearly that atheists, agnostics, and pagans or any other individual who base their morals outside religion do not value freedom, or can not grasp the importance of freedom. Not only is this wrong but it is counter to his overall argument. He is stating that he should not be judged by his religion, while stating his religion informs his ideas of freedom. Further, he wishes us to believe that he refuses to leverage his values for election. Meanwhile, he defended abortion to be elected to the governor, while abandoning this stance now.
You go on to build a strawman of secularist demands. I know of no movement to ban personal expressions of belief nor be kept out of sight. The desire to prohibit the exultation of one religion over all others, or one denomination above all others by the federal government is altogether different that what you propose secularists are requiring. If your remarks are prefaced and directed solely at Xel and his/her personal preferences I apologize of course, but I did not get the impression that they were.
, “but also – and it has always meant that – that they can express their faith in the public square.”
Really? What do you mean by public square? Is that a real place or some sort of metaphor? Do you reduce all questions of law to a sort of minimalistic point of “tolerance” and being offended, or is it just this one topic? You would, as an American studies student (Liberty university?) know that the Supreme Court ruled on this as early as the eighteenth century, and as late as this year. So you are basing your “public square” hypothesis on…what? Intentions? If the land is owned by the public (that is federal or state) then it can not be used to establish the predominant belief of one religion over another. How hard is that to understand or accept? Private land? Build a monument to the flood myth! Publicly owned land? Build monuments to all faiths or none at all. Easy. So sayeth the Supreme Court based on the Constitution.
As for a “serious lack of knowledge about American culture”, I can only ask, what has that to do with any of this? Culture? Really? We should reformat our legal compass based on something as esoteric and changeable as “culture”? Lack of knowledge indeed.
Since the thread was regarding Religion in America – I really did not think I would have to spell it out.
And no I didn’t.
And this matters…..
not at all. The Constitution is what matters.
The bible is not the Constitution of the United States. That alone negates any reference you would like to place for whatever non related purpose.
Wrong again. Definition of Dichotomy. – Division into two parts. The Constitution is not your faith, the Constitution says you have the freedom to practice what you want – it does not express what a faith is.
Wrong yet again, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Counter that and come talk again.
If I were to guess, it would be because you have not shown an ability to respond to posts without reducing to an unknown degree of your own making.
Well you have the ACLU fully supporting a School from yanking a microphone from a Valedictorian giving her speech when she went on to mention what her faith means to her, that is when the ACLU fully supports trampling over one person’s rights to remove another one of her rights.
Michael is correct.
I disagree with Romney’s statement, but recognize that it has a kernel of historical truth underneath. The liberal ideals that underpin the Enlightenment had intellectual roots in the protestant Reformation. Recognizing that fact does NOT lead intrinsically to theocratic rule, it merely requires that religion’s positive contributions be acknowledged in addition to its negative ones. Romney is not saying anything here that Pope John Paul II didn’t say. Was he “frightening and abhorrent” when he used religious appeals to stir the beginnings of secular freedom in the former Soviet bloc?
I think it is only “frightening and abhorrent” to those who are too easily frightened and/or who find expression of any view they disagree with to be intolerable. Those people are far more dangerous in my view than anything represented by Romney because it is those people who have an actual record of trying to suppress expression of views they disagree with. For all the hype about a “theocracy” in the United States, religious believers have not been trying to strip atheist or agnostic groups of their funding, drive them out of politics, or censor their access to the public square. On the other side, however, many anti-religion activists have been VERY aggressive in trying to impose their views as “required thought”. Christian clubs have been targeted on many college campuses for stripping of their access to funding, religious students have been targeted by abusive teachers, and even Christian displays on private lands have been the target of lawsuits attempting to censor them. A few have even suggested that religion be outright banned or, at least, required to be kept completely hidden from all public view (which amounts to the same thing as a ban, as we saw in the USSR).
So if you want to know what I find “scary and abhorrent”, don’t look to Romney. Look to the former Soviet Union. Or the society envisioned by the anti-religion activists. Those two are largely the same thing.
I say all of this, by the way, as a largely non-religious person who hasn’t been to church in many years and who tends right now to support non-religious Democratic candidates in the upcoming election. So don’t even TRY to spin me as part of the alleged theocratic conspiracy.
Seriously?
Of course he is.
This is getting amusing. I said no tax money spent on one religion’s exposure where it isn’t appropriate. You can exhibit any personal attachment to whatever out in the public square.
Why the oaths? Will the Christians be sad if they don’t have to mention god in these oaths? Why make the oaths the same for everybody?
Enforced public expression – as in the oaths taken by witnesses et al. That is anti-secular. No one should have to swear on the bible, but no one should be kept from doing it.
I haven’t said that. You sound like I have unleashed Lions upon you at the Circus.
Nope. I’ve never said people can’t stage the unimaginative nativity scene in public. I’ve said no one should spend my tax money in setting one up because christians are the minority.
He said the link was exclusive, in a manner saying that we need God to give us freedom – which is sickening to me, who have established a pretty tight set of morals strictly based in the humanity of me and the equal humanity of others. I felt insulted and cut out by his "Aw shucks" pandering/honesty.
I have no memory of that. I have argued that religion is intrinsically an arena of thought I can’t trust and I think is incompatible with humanity’s situation, and I have said I wish to make religion in general look less attractive and useful. If I had implied something more sinister then either quote me so that I can renege or stop saying -effectively- "Lions! Stalin! Hipocrisy!".
Of course not, unfortunately that is an undeniable human right and I respect it as much as the right to have an abortion. But I still object to the state using atheists’ tax money in promoting any religion where it is not fitting. Such as the oaths in witness standings or the commandments taking exclusive place on top of courthouses rather than being set in a panorama in some history of justice department inside of the building.
Well, Steck mentioned the wanton religion-banners (apparently me) last which is why he probably equivalized. That still doesn’t mean he was a tad unclear but I guess he made sense.
Oh. So? Haven’t objected to that. No tax money spent on one religion where it is not due or proper. Does this make me a roman, really? Am I about to shove people in a furnace?
Site Manager: Please organize your thoughts into one post. Bumping up the comment count by rapid-fire commenting multiple times in a row can scare off new readers from sharing their own input. Thanks
Organizing all my thoughts:
First off, I shouldn’t have made this statement: "If the land is owned by the public (that is federal or state) then it can not be used to establish…" Obviously, states have the right to make their own laws and have even declared they have an official religion.
Secondly, any historical debate that determines that the legal movement to stop federal establishment is somehow dangerous while also pushing the idea that, "For all the hype about a “theocracy” in the United States, religious believers have not been trying to strip atheist or agnostic groups of their funding, drive them out of politics, or censor their access to the public square." is ridiculous. For one example, I am an atheist and I’m not allowed to run for public office in my home state of Maryland. It’s the law. Look at the campaign against "The Golden Compass". Take the firing of the state board of education member in Texas for forwarding an email about a talk by a Intelligent Design debunker.
As for the ex-Soviet Russia, do you want to compare all secularist governments to all theocracies throughout history?
I am certain those with a religious belief disagree with my atheism. But I am just as certain those who do not believe in Christianity are burdened by the incessant push to make it the de facto theology of the government. Further I am certain that there are a large number of people who find abhorrent and frightening the statement, "There is no freedom without religion…" if not for the implications than for the entirely self-serving nature evinced by the speaker- just broad enough to include Mormonism, but narrow enough to exclude non-believers.
I can not fathom "Interested’s" arguments at all, just as he/she seems unable to understand mine. All I can say is I used dichotomy correctly according to the definition stated, and I used the Bible, as I stated to show the hypocrisy those religious believers who argue for public displays of their faith. It says nothing at all about the Constitution. I have argued against establishment from a purely Constitutional point of view.