On 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.