I’m not sure if this was the right thing to do, but Mitt Romney feels it necessary to give a speech that, while billed as one dealing with his Mormon faith, doesn’t really appear to deal with that specifically. From the news reports on those parts of the speech released so far, Romney sounds defensive.
Republican Mitt Romney declares in a speech being delivered Thursday that he shares “moral convictions” with Americans of all faiths, but should not have to explain his own religion just because he’s striving to become the first Mormon elected president.
“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,” Romney said in remarks prepared for delivery at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum.
Well, actually, explaining your religious views does not, in any way, violate the Constitution. Article 6 states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
What I emphasized there is that one’s religion cannot be used to disqualify someone from running for or serving as President or any other office. We’re past that already; Romney has not been disqualified on account of his religion, and should he win the election he can serve.
Once someone is a candidate, however, questions about their values and views that are affected by their religious beliefs are completely fair game. How his religion, or lack thereof, informs his opinion on abortion, gay rights, tax policy and the like are certainly allowable questions. If there are any limits, they are limits of reasonableness; what is reasonable to understand about their religion that would be required to understand how they would govern. Mike Huckabee put it this way:
“I think it’s a matter of what his views are - whether they are consistent, whether they are authentic, just like mine are,” Huckabee told NBC’s “Today.”"If I had actions that were completely opposite of my Christian faith, then I would think people would have reason to doubt if this part of my life, which is supposed to be so important, doesn’t influence me. Then they would have to question whether or not there are other areas of my life that lack that authenticity as well”.
Frankly, people are just as free to vote against someone because of their religion as they are to vote for them because they make a good impression on The Tonight Show, and neither is unconstitutional.
So the constitutional issue is completely off the table, but that seems to be one of the main points of Romney’s speech, and that sounds very defensive, which is not how you need to appear with less than a month before the Iowa caucuses. He does make some very good points regarding church-state separation that I wholeheartedly agree with. But his appeal to the Constitution to refrain from getting to detailed about his beliefs doesn’t come across well, and the speech may do more harm than good for his campaign.
Loading ...
5 users commented in " Romney’s “Faith” Speech "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackYou’re quick to judge the speech, considering from your remarks you obviously haven’t listened to it.
Romney clearly states that he DOES feel certain questions are appropriate to ask regarding a presidential candidate’s faith, and he addresses those points in the speech.
Why don’t you just listen to it?
You dont have to agree with theology to agree that real and authentic faith is important for leaders.
For an evangelical’s perspective, go to the Red Letter Believers blog at:
http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2007/12/romney-speaks-out.html
Then the appeal to Article 6 sounds even more desperate. If he does feel these questions are appropriate, why even bring it up? It doesn’t pertain to his situation.
I’ve read the speech, and I think it’s a good one overall. It restates the conservative’s point of view on the church/state relationship and is nothing new in that respect. It may even make some evangelicals more comfortable with him. But it’s the appeal to the Constitution that bothered me.
The speech was Romney’s best and definately elevated him to a status of President. One focus of his speech was bringing people together; not separating them because of religion.
I agree with Romney’s speech and thought he did very well. I have often thought the way to teach tolerance, learn tolerance and eventually respect for each other is to allow us to talk and educate each other about our beliefs. Perhaps if there was more education and appreciation of peoples faith in schools, there would be less hatred out side of the school.
I apologize this is a comment in reference to another comment. I assume you mean we should promote inter-faith discussion in Public Schools. Otherwise I’m sure there is already a healthy does of indoctrination into whatever faith any private institution is affiliated with, making the comment moot. If religion is to be taught, explored within the public school system, are you suggesting a specific denomination to teach? Or perhaps a more liberal religious view, we can teach about all denominations of Christianity. But what about Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, the devout faithful of Zoroaster. Then the over worked, seldom appreciated teachers of our public school systems can explain, why Timmies god is not the same as Ishanties. And When Timmy goes home and has another education inspired discussion with parents who would rather not discuss such things, we can fire our over stressed teachers for all new reasons. Or maybe those people who would like to see religion in public schools would simply like to see only their religion taught in public schools.
I’ll admit exploring ethics, and even morality would be a plus. Learning of religions with parental consent could even be productive, but keep religion in the domain of parent only control. At least until college.
Dancing back to the question at hand, religion is an easy way to label people as similar or different. We think we know what we are getting if he shares a religion, just like we think we know what we’re getting if he roots for red states. He told us nothing. And showed no integrity to boot. Check his record, afford a mistake or two, but never hope to gain insight through pretty words alone. He told us nothing.
I think you’re right he was defensive.
Leave A Reply