Mitt Romney's Faith Speech
Dec. 9th, 2007 11:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theatokosOn Dec. 6th Mitt Romney gave a speech in Texas on faith and what it means to his campaign. (For the full transcript of the speech go here.)
I've been mulling over this speech for a couple of days now. Before the speech many pundits were guessing that it was going to be like Kennedy's speech (which I've only ever heard once) in which he says being Catholic will not get in the way of his being president. This speech was nothing like that.
I'm annoyed that Romney even needs to make a speech about faith. His being Mormon is a concern for many (me included, and I'll own up right now that I have a large, mostly irrational problem with Mormonism and I'm not proud of this prejudice). But this speech is also in response to Mike Huckabee's harping on religious values. I'm annoyed that we would pick a president based on their religious affiliation and not on their policies and record - or not vote for some one based on their religious affiliation.
Now, I don't for a second think that faith and politics are separate. Anyone who thinks that personal beliefs do not inform, inspire and direct a person's public behaviour and actions is completely naive. I damn well hope a person is consistent and strong enough to put their beliefs into action. But to make faith - and particularly, increasingly Evangelical Protestant Christianity - a tacit prerequisite for public office is infuriating and wrong. Romney's time out to reassure people that he's a Christian takes time out from the pressing issues of the economy, poverty, environment, health care, the war, etc. And all of those issues are moral issues. Morality does not begin and end with which book one claims as scripture, or with abortion or homosexuality.
To get back to Romney's speech specifically, this paragraph was perhaps the most telling and the most disturbing to me:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
NO. Freedom does not require religion. Freedom is one aspect that I believe comes from the best that religion can offer, but it is not an automatic requirement or benefit of religion. History reveals a pretty mixed bag in this regard. This argument is taken to it's inevitable next step suggesting that secularism is the inner enemy. By repeating over and over again the religious heritage of the United States is one of Christian faith Romney is essentially saying that the US is a land for Believers - for monotheistic believers. That while no single denomination should rule, we all agree on the same basic principles. Right? He mentions Christians, Jews and Muslims. He makes no reference to Hindus, Pagans, Baha'i, or anyone else. Do not these people also care about the "morality" of caring for the earth, the poor, their families, paying the bills? Don't atheists and agnostics care about these things? It is self-righteous and myopic to think that monotheism has the lock on morality.
When a candidate for president is asked how their faith will impact their presidency, there is only one right answer: As president of the United States I will serve every citizen and uphold the Constitution.
By EVERY citizen I mean the Jew, the Christian, the secular believer, the Pagan, the Muslim, the Hindu, the atheist, and any one of whatever stripe.
End of discussion, end of debate.
I've been mulling over this speech for a couple of days now. Before the speech many pundits were guessing that it was going to be like Kennedy's speech (which I've only ever heard once) in which he says being Catholic will not get in the way of his being president. This speech was nothing like that.
I'm annoyed that Romney even needs to make a speech about faith. His being Mormon is a concern for many (me included, and I'll own up right now that I have a large, mostly irrational problem with Mormonism and I'm not proud of this prejudice). But this speech is also in response to Mike Huckabee's harping on religious values. I'm annoyed that we would pick a president based on their religious affiliation and not on their policies and record - or not vote for some one based on their religious affiliation.
Now, I don't for a second think that faith and politics are separate. Anyone who thinks that personal beliefs do not inform, inspire and direct a person's public behaviour and actions is completely naive. I damn well hope a person is consistent and strong enough to put their beliefs into action. But to make faith - and particularly, increasingly Evangelical Protestant Christianity - a tacit prerequisite for public office is infuriating and wrong. Romney's time out to reassure people that he's a Christian takes time out from the pressing issues of the economy, poverty, environment, health care, the war, etc. And all of those issues are moral issues. Morality does not begin and end with which book one claims as scripture, or with abortion or homosexuality.
To get back to Romney's speech specifically, this paragraph was perhaps the most telling and the most disturbing to me:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
NO. Freedom does not require religion. Freedom is one aspect that I believe comes from the best that religion can offer, but it is not an automatic requirement or benefit of religion. History reveals a pretty mixed bag in this regard. This argument is taken to it's inevitable next step suggesting that secularism is the inner enemy. By repeating over and over again the religious heritage of the United States is one of Christian faith Romney is essentially saying that the US is a land for Believers - for monotheistic believers. That while no single denomination should rule, we all agree on the same basic principles. Right? He mentions Christians, Jews and Muslims. He makes no reference to Hindus, Pagans, Baha'i, or anyone else. Do not these people also care about the "morality" of caring for the earth, the poor, their families, paying the bills? Don't atheists and agnostics care about these things? It is self-righteous and myopic to think that monotheism has the lock on morality.
When a candidate for president is asked how their faith will impact their presidency, there is only one right answer: As president of the United States I will serve every citizen and uphold the Constitution.
By EVERY citizen I mean the Jew, the Christian, the secular believer, the Pagan, the Muslim, the Hindu, the atheist, and any one of whatever stripe.
End of discussion, end of debate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-09 11:17 pm (UTC)2. I definitely agree that your religion really shapes you. And I also would be most comfortable KNOWING a politician's religion. But whats most important is knowing that the politician in question doesn't let their religious beliefs cross over into their political agenda.
3. I cant wait for a non-Christian president. Seriously. Anything but Christian at this point. (I know that sounds horrible!)
p.s. Your posts are really fun to read.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-09 11:39 pm (UTC)2- I don't think it's possible for religious views NOT to effect agenda. I mean, if a person is serious about Jesus then they're going to have to take poverty seriously. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, spends WAY more time exhorting us to care for the poor, the sick, the widows, the orphans and the outcasts. So if a candidate is a declared Christian then I think it's fair to ask what their faith has to say on issues of peace and poverty. If I like the response and the policy I will follow with my vote. I think the idea that faith and politics are entirely separate is untenable. The challenge is to be clear, consistent (integrity and little hypocritical as possible, a challenge for us all), and FAIR as possible.
3- The current Christian baiting is sickening. None of the candidates give Christianity a good name. Again, it's about consistency, integrity and POLICY for me. Being a nice person, a faithful believer, blah blah blah. I don't think the majority of Christians in this country - even ones more conservative than me - are thrilled with the Republican party's cooptation of Christianity. It's like that annoying kid in the back of the classroom, the one who has a plausible point, but makes such a loud fuss about it until everyone just caves in to get him to shut up. Only a lot scarier because now it's our country and not our classroom.
However, I think most Christians and most of middle America feel put off by the Democrats weak admission of faith and the often snotty condescension of the rest of the Dem party when any one does bring faith into the picture.
There just has to be a more respectful dialog out there. I remain a frustrated optimist about this.
ps- Thanks!
no subject
Date: 2007-12-10 03:47 pm (UTC)One of the major bitches about Bush is that he wears his religion on his sleeve and that we are a "theocracy" and the government is too influenced by religion.
So the 4 leading (meaning ahead in the polls)front runners are all VERY religious and make no bones about it. Clinton, Obama, Romney, and Huckabee - all wearing their religion on their sleeve.
So America...wtf do you want?
no subject
Date: 2007-12-10 07:08 pm (UTC)I'm just dying for some authenticity and consistency. And I will say your man, Ron Paul, seems to do a great job of both. He's straight up about his beliefs and then puts them into action. If only I liked his policy.....
no subject
Date: 2007-12-10 07:49 pm (UTC)I don't get it.
About RP...yeah, he is a staunch Libertarian...so if that's not your thing....
I have voted for people that I didn't like their policies, but thought they were honest, straight-forward, and sincere. At least I knew what to expect from them. But they are few and far between.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-10 10:15 pm (UTC)another of my major problems with this statement is that is appears to be a direct refutation of the origins of this country. religion, i.e. practicing the "right" form of christianity, lead to prosecution and restriction of many which lead to groups leaving europe so they could have freedom from the religion practiced by the majority. in their case religion equaled persecution and imprisonment. to imply that religion leads to and helps create freedom seems like a deliberate re-writing of history.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-10 10:22 pm (UTC)Pretty much I don't want to hear anything even remotely related to the founding of this country unless the person speaking has a PhD in American history specifically relating to that time period, or is involved in constitutional history or historical law.
I wish Mitt would have kept his mouth shut. His whole speech is basically a public fellating of the religious Right.