Romney talks religion
December 6th, 2007Mitt Romney addressed Mormonism, religion and the presidency in his speech today in Texas.
“I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith,” Romney said at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, 90 miles from Kennedy’s speaking site in Houston.
“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin,” Romney said.
He added: “If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.”
To be completely clear, I have deep reservations about supporting a Mormon candidate for president, and I doubt that anything Romney could have said today would have alleviated my concerns.
A complete transcript of Romney’s prepared comments are available here, at National Review Online. I’m not sure how the speech as-given differed from the speech as-prepared, but while the political sentiments are often very commendable, a couple things strike me as noteworthy, particularly from this one passage:
There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
“My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths.”
They “may not all be the same”? “May not”?! What an understatement, one that is frankly offensive in the degree to which insults our intelligence. The unique historical claim of Mormonism — that Jesus, Moses, Elijah and other major figures of the Bible appeared to Joseph Smith because Christianity had strayed so far from the truth — logically requires that the theological gulf between Christianity and Mormonism is absolutely vast. It’s insulting to act as if even the existence of that gulf is somehow in question, as if it’s only that Mormon beliefs “may not all” match those of Catholics and Baptists.
“Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”
This doesn’t fly: of course doctrinal difference is a basis for criticism, and Mormonism concedes as much in its assertion of exclusivity that most other religions also share (i.e., its belief that all other faiths are, to one degree or another, wrong), in its attempt to proselytize, and most emphatically in its belief that Catholics and Baptists alike are apostates to such a degree that practically every major figure of the Bible had to show up for an encore appearance to tell Joseph Smith where we’ve gone astray.
The fact is, even in this speech, Romney demonstrates that he doesn’t really think doctrinal differences are exempt from criticism, as he criticizes “the creed of conversion by conquest.”
And, the gist of this comment is repellant. Religious tolerance means, simply this:
- I acknowledge and defend your right to believe what you want and to worship as you wish, within reason.
- I furthermore acknowledge and defend your right to run for political office regardless of your theological beliefs and religious affiliation.
Romney wants to extend the definition of religious intolerance from the desire to exclude certain faiths from running for office to the refusal to support a particular candidate for that office, namely himself. I doubt that he would be so loose with the idea of intolerance if a member of Fred Phelps’ congregation were running for office, but regardless: it’s cheap to insinuate that refusing to support a Mormon for office is equivalent to trying to deny him the right to run in the first place.
“There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.”
This is, frankly, horse manure. The “religious test” clause in Article VI is intended to prevent the government from dictating which religious adherents can run for office; it has no impact whatsoever on whether individual voters are free to let religious affiliation impact their decision on who to support. (How could it? How could the Constitution dictate a voter’s thoughts and decision-making process?) If Romney truly misunderstands Article VI this thoroughly despite his law degree, he doesn’t belong in office; or if he thinks he can misconstrue Article VI this badly and get away with doing so, he doesn’t belong in office.
–
It really seems to me that Romney wants to have it both ways.
My faith is grounded on these [universal truths of equality, community, and liberty] . You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
It seems that Romney’s approach is to appeal to his faith as a reason to vote for him while simultaneously attacking as intolerant those who see his faith as a reason to vote against him. He’s arguing, vote for me because I’m a devout church-goer, but don’t you dare draw any negative conclusions from what my church actually believes.
That might be a clever thing to do politically, but that doesn’t make it honorable.
As an addendum, David Frum at NRO makes a very good point, here
Frum notes that Romney is perfectly willing to admit a purely theological claim: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.”
The idea that he’s willing to admit this, but not the details of what he means by this, is not intellectually consistent.
To be blunt, Romney is saying:
It is legitimate to ask a candidate, “Is Jesus the son of God?”
But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, “Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?”
It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions, and I think on reflection that the audiences to whom Romney is trying to appeal will also fail to see such a difference. Once Romney answered any question about the content of his religious faith, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith. This speech for all its eloquence will not stanch the flow of such questions.
I agree with all this, but what’s left unsaid is the reason why Romney can admit the above but bristles at questions about details of Mormon theology: politics. It’s politically expedient to emphasize the seeming similarity between Mormonism and Christianity even in theological claims, but it borders on political suicide to go into the details of the very real theological differences.
It’s slick, and I’m reminded of a recent President who proved to be very adept at saying precisely what it took to win the White House.
I wouldn’t vote for him because he comes off like a jerk. I see no reason to think he would be any different than what we have in place now.
Check out bpnews.net for some interesting articles on Christianity and Mormonism.